Skip to main content

Full text of "Communist infiltration of Hollywood motion-picture industry : hearing before the Committee on Un-American activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-second Congress, first session"

See other formats

7/  ;>■      cs?  /%?     Cj?./> 

Williams  Colleg,  Library 







AUGUST  19  AND  SEPTEMBER  29,  1952 

Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Un-American  Activities 

21546  WASHINGTON  :  1052 


United  States  House  of  Representatives 

JOHN  S.  WOOD,  Georgia,  Chairman 
FRANCIS  E.  WALTER,  Pennsylvania  HAROLD  H.  VELDE,  Illinois 

MORGAN  M.  MOULDER,  Missouri  BERNARD  W.  KEARNEY,  New  York 

CLYDE  DOYLE,  California  DONALD  L.  JACKSON.  California 

JAMES  B.  FRAZIER,  Jr.,  Tennessee  CHARLES  E.  POTTER,  Michigan 

Frank  S.  Tavenner,  Jr.,  Counsel 

Louis  J.  Russell,  Senior  Investigator 

John  W.  Carrington,  Clerk  of  Committee 

Raphael  I.  Nixon,  Director  of  Research 




August  19,  1952,  testimony  of  Bernard  C.  Sehoenfeld 4249 

September  29,  1952,  testimony  of  Roy  Huggins 4264 



TUESDAY,  AUGUST   19,    1952 

United  States  House  of  Representatives, 

Committee  on  Un-American  Activities, 

Washington,  D.  C. 


A  subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Un-American  Activities  met, 
pursuant  to  call,  at  10  :30  a.  m.,  in  room  226,  Old  House  Office  Build- 
ing:, Hon,  John  S.  Wood  (chairman)  presiding. 

Committee  members  present :  Representatives  John  S.  Wood  (chair- 
man) and  Harold  H.  Velde. 

Staff  members  present:  Frank  S.  Tavenner,  Jr.,  counsel;  Thomas 
W.  Beale,  Sr.,  assistant  counsel;  John  W.  Carrington,  clerk;  and  A. 
S.  Poore,  editor. 

Mr.  Wood.  Come  to  order,  please. 

Let  the  record  disclose  that  for  the  purposes  of  this  hearing  I  have 
set  up  a  subcommittee  composed  of  Messrs.  Velde  and  Wood,  who 
are  both  present. 

Whom  do  you  call,  Mr.  Tavenner  ? 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Mr.  Bernard  C.  Schoenfeld. 

Mr.  Wood.  Will  you  raise  your  right  hand,  sir,  and  be  sworn  ? 

You  do  solemnly  swear  that  the  evidence  you  give  this  subcommittee 
will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help 
you  God  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  do. 


Mr.  Wood.  Are  you  represented  by  counsel,  Mr.  Schoenfeld  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  am  not. 

Mr.  Wood.  Do  you  desire  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Wood.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  outset  I  would  like  to  explain 
that  when  Mr.  Stanley  Roberts  testified  in  open  session  before  the 
committee  regarding  his  open  participation  in  Communist  Party  ac- 
tivities in  Hollywood  as  a  screen  writer,  he  identified  Mr.  Schoenfeld 
as  a  person  who  collaborated  with  him  in  regard  to  his  joining  the 
Communist  Party. 

On  the  following  day,  an  attorney  from  New  York  called  me  and 
stated  that  Mr.  Schoenfeld  had  been  to  see  him,  and  that  Mr.  Schoen- 
feld desired  to  appear  before  the  committee  in  response  to  the  general 



invitation  which  you  have  from  time  to  time  issued,  namely,  that 
whenever  a  person  or  an  organization  has  been  mentioned  in  the  course 
of  the  testimony  before  the  committee,  he  or  it  should  have  the  op- 
portunity to  appear  and  give  such  explanation  or  denial  as  he  or  it 
desires  to  make. 

In  response  to  that  telephone  communication,  I  arranged  for  Mr. 
Schoenfeld  to  interview  a  member  of  the  staff;  which  was  done,  and 
finally,  as  a  result,  Mr.  Schoenfeld,  at  his  request,  appears  here  today. 

Before  giving  him  an  opportunity  to  make  the  statement  that 
he  desires  to  make,  I  would  like  to  ask  him  a  few  preliminary  questions. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld,  when  and  where  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  In  New  York  City,  August  17,  1907. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  is  your  profession  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Screen  writer. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  is  your  educational  background  for  the  pro- 
fession of  which  you  are  a  member  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Harvard  University,  from  which  I  graduated 
in  1928,  and  then  post  graduate  course  in  the  Yale  School  of  Drama 
at  Yale,  from  which  I  graduated  in  1930. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Would  you  tell  the  committee,  please,  what  your 
experience  in  your  profession  has  been  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  upon  graduation  from  the  Yale  School 
of  Drama,  I  wrote  plays,  one  of  which  was  introduced  on  Broadway, 
then  another  which  was  produced  on  Broadway. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  are  those  plays  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  The  first  play  was  called  Shooting  Star,  in  1933 
or  1931,  and  the  other  one  was  called  Hitch  Your  Wagon,  which  was 
produced  in  1936. 

In  1936, 1  left  play  writing  and  came  to  Washington,  where  I  worked 
for  7  years  in  Government  service. 

From  1936  to  1938, 1  was  a  radio  writer  for  the  Office  of  Education, 
and  then  in  1938  I  became  chief  script  writer  for  the  Radio  Section 
of  the  Department  of  the  Interior. 

In  1940,  I  was  appointed  Chief  of  the  Radio  Section  of  the  Office 
for  Emergency  Management. 

In  1942, 1  was  editor  of  the  Radio  Bureau  of  OWL 

It  was  in  1943  that  I  became  a  screen  writer  in  Hollywood,  and 
have  been  a  screen  writer  since,  writing  for  motion  pictures.  Those 
are  Phantom  Lady,  Dark  Corner,  Caged,  C-a-g-e-d,  and  Macao, 

That  is  the  extent  of  my  career. 

(Representative  Harold  H.  Velde  left  the  hearing  room  at  this 

Mr.  Tavenner.  At  the  time  you  worked  for  the  Government  be- 
tween 1936, 1  believe,  and  1943,  were  you  a  member  of  the  Communist 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  was  not,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  When  did  you  become  a  member  of  the  Communist 
Party,  if  you  did? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  became  a  member  of  the  Communist  Political 
Association,  as  it  was  then  known,  in  April  or  May  of  1945,  in 


Mr.  Tavenner.  Now  you  are  at  liberty  to  make  any  statement  that 
you  desire  to  the  committee  regarding  your  alleged  participation  in 
the  Communist  Party  or  the  Communist  Political  Association. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  sir,  until  1944,  the  words  '"Communist" 
and  "communism"  had  absolutely  no  meaning  to  me,  save  that  1  knew 
them  as  any  layman,  but  was  completely  disinterested,  and  I  had 
always,  in  Washington,  been  connected  with  the  New  Deal  and  with 
the  liberal  policies  of  President  Eoosevelt,  and  upon  his  death  Mr. 
Stanley  Roberts  and  I,  wishing  some  participation  in  what  we  con- 
sidered the  liberal  cause,  accepted  what  was  told  to  us  about  the 
Communist  Political  Association  and  joined,  after  the  death  of  Mr. 

I  joined  believing  what  I  had  been  told,  what  I  had  been  told  by 
Mr.  Albert  Maltz,  John  Howard  Lawson,  Dalton  Trumbo,  Henry 
Myers.  These  four  gentlemen  had,  previous  to  April  1945,  at  various 
times  talked  to  me  about  the  Communist  Political  Association.  They 
knew  me  to  be  a  follower  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  policies,  and  they  kept 
explaining  to  me  how  the  CPA  had  backed  Mr.  Roosevelt  in  the  last 
election.  They  pointed  out  to  me  that  the  association  had  no  candi- 
date of  its  own,  since  it  was  not  a  political  party.  They  emphasized 
that  the  association  believed  in  gradual  social  change  and  was  working 
and  would  continue  to  work  within  the  framework  of  the  existing 
Democratic  Party. 

Mr.  Roberts  and  I  kept  discussing  the  pros  and  cons  of  joining, 
and  it  was  only  with  the  shock  of  President  Roosevelt's  death  in 
April  1945  that  he  and  I  agreed  that  the  CPA  was  a  group  where 
we  could  best  function  as  liberals. 

I  got  in  touch  with  Mr.  Maltz,  who  arranged  for  me  to  attend  a 
meeting,  and  Mr.  Roberts  and  I  joined  at  approximately  the  same 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Let  me  interrupt  you  there.  How  long  had  you 
known  Mr.  Maltz  ? 

Mr.  SciiOENFELn.  "Well,  Mr.  Maltz,  I  had  known  personally  since 
the  Yale  Drama  School,  where  he  had  been  a  fellow  student,  but  I 
had  not  seen  him  until  the  fall  of  1944.  I  had  not  seen  him  at  all. 
And  because  we  were  both  screen  writers,  I  met  him  at  a  meeting, 
and  subsequently  was  invited  to  his  house,  where  he  then  began  to 
talk  about  the  Communist  Political  Association. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Well,  in  the  conversations  that  you  had  with  Mr. 
Albert  Maitz,  Mr.  Dalton  Trumbo,  Mr.  John  Howard  LawTson,  and 
Mr.  Henry  Myers,  were  those  discussions  of  a  character  which  were 
designed  to  induce  you  to  become  a  member  of  the  party? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  they  solicit  your  membership,  in  the  course 
of  the  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  it  took,  you  see,  from  the  early  fall  of  1944 
until  April  1945  for  me  to  be  convinced.  They  emphasized  the  way  in 
which — how  the  association  had  a  program  of  gradual  political  change. 
And  since  in  Washington  I  had  been  a  stanch  follower  of  the  liberal 
doctrines  of  the  administration,  and  here  I  was  in  Hollywood  with 
no  activity,  I  finally  believed  them. 


Mr.  Tavenner.  Prior  to  the  time  of  your  becoming  a  member  of 
the  party,  or  the  Communist  Political  Association,  had  you  united 
with  organizations  which  you  later  found  out  were  Communist-front 
organizations  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes,  sir.  Two  organizations. 
When  I  arrived  in  Washington,  I  became  a  member  of  the  Screen 
Writers'  Guild  automatically,  and  almost  the  entire  membership  of 
the  guild  at  that  time,  in  the  "war  years,  almost  the  entire  membership, 
with  other  guilds  and  unions,  belonged  to  what  was  called  the  Holly- 
wood Mobilization.  This  was  the  joining  of  these  unions  and  guilds 
to  work  for  the  war  effort. 

I  joined,  and  I  believe  I  wrote  probably  a  half  dozen  Red  Cross 
radio  messages  and  a  few  skits  for  the  USO.  That  was  my  participa- 
tion there. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  In  referring  to  the  Hollywood  Mobilization,  did 
you  mean  the  Hollywood  Writers'  Mobilization  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes ;  the  Hollywood  Writers'  Mobilization,  sir. 
And  at  that  time  thousands  of  writers,  directors,  and  technicians 
belonged.  The  Writers'  Mobilization  was  part  of  the  larger  Holly- 
wood Mobilization,  I  believe. 

And  with  hindsight  it  now  becomes  clear,  when  you  read  the  names 
of  the  leaders  of  the  guild  at  that  time  and  the  leaders  of  the  mobili- 
zation, Lawson,  Maltz,  that  it  was  a  front  group. 

Mr,  Tavenner.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  League  of  American 
Writers  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  a  member  of  the  League  of  Amer- 
ican Writers  for  approximately  6  months.  I  believe  it  was  the  fall 
of  1938,  or  perhaps  the  beginning  of  1939.  Somewhere  in  1939,  when 
I  was  still  here  in  Washington,  I  sent  a  letter  of  resignation  and  re- 
signed from  the  League  of  American  Writers  because  I  was  incensed 
by  the  attack  of  the  U.  S.  S.  R.  on  Finland.  At  that  time,  the  League 
of  American  Writers  sent  me  some  kind  of  document  standing  by  the 
position  that  it  was  not  an  invasion,  and  I  sent  such  a  letter  of  resig- 
nation to  the  league  in,  I  think,  1939. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  who  was  the  national  president  at 
that  time  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  do  not. 

Mr,  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  the  name  of  any  official  of  the  League 
of  American  Writers  to  whom  you  addressed  your  letter  of  resig- 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  No,  sir.  I  am  positive  that  all  I  did  was  send  the 
letter  to  the  League  of  American  Writers. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  you  receive  an  acknowledgment  of  your  resig- 
nation ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  No;  I  do  not  remember  having  received  one. 
Mr.  Tavenner.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Writers'  Congress  of 
1943  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  was,  sir.  That  was  the  second  front  organiza- 
tion, or  I  believe  it  to  have  been  a  front  organization.  It  wasn't  an 
organization  that  you  joined.  It  was  merely,  if  I  remember,  a  week 
of  seminars  on  the  University  of  Southern  California,  at  which  tech- 
nicians in  all  media  of  communication  gave  lectures.  And  I  was 
aske(l — I  cannot  remember  by  whom,  but  I  was  asked — if  I  would 
one  afternoon  give  a  lecture  with  Norman  Corwin  and  Arch  Oboler 


on  documentary  radio.  I  did,  and  that  was  my  one  and  only  partic- 
ipation in  the  Congress. 

Again,  with  hindsight,  I  am  positive  that  the  Writers'  Congress 
was  a  Communist  front,  and  that  my  name  and  my  reputation  were 
being  used  with  those  of  other  liberals  as  come-ons.  And,  as  I  say, 
it  was  just  one  afternoon  that  I  spoke  there. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  And  that  was  before  you  became  a  member  of  the 
Communist  Political  Association  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  It  was,  sir ;  by  a  year  and  a  half. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  know  whether  this  Congress  was  conducted 
by  the  Hollywood  Writers'  Mobilization? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  believe  it  was.  I  wouldn't  swear  to  it,  but  I 
believe  it  was.  At  least,  remembering  back  there,  I  believe  that  there 
was  some  linkage  there. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  have  any  recollection  at  all  of  how  your 
participation  in  the  program  was  solicited  and  obtained? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  If  I  remember,  Mr.  Oboler,  Mr.  Corwin,  and 
myself,  and  others,  being  notified  of  the  hour  and  the  afternoon 
that  we  were  to  speak — and  I  don't  know  who  it  was.  I  am  sure 
that  whoever  it  was,  if  I  knew  the  person,  I  would  remember.  It 
might  easily  have  been  someone  from  the  mobilization,  since  it  was 
the  same  period,  I  believe.     It  was  1943,  if  I  remember. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Now,  what  other  front  organizations  did  you  join? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  The  League  of  American  Writers.  Those  three. 
And  I  am  not  at  all  certain  that  I  ever  joined  the  Hollywood  Inde- 

Mr.  Beale.  — Citizens'  Committee  of  the  Arts,  Sciences,  and 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Thank  you,  sir. 

I  attended  two  meetings  in  1948,  and  I  remember  giving  a  check 
for  $10  at  the  Hotel  Roosevelt,  and  that  was  my  entire  extent  of 
activity  in  HICCASP,  which  I  am  certain,  because  of  the  roster 
of  names  which  since  have  come  out  as  members  of  the  Communist 
Party,  must  have  been  a  Communist  front. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  you  ever  affiliate  with  the  Hollywood  Anti- 
Nazi  League? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  did  not,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Are  there  any  other  organizations  which  you  have 
reason  to  believe  were  Communist-front  organizations,  which  you 
joined  prior  to  your  membership  in  the  Communist  Political  Asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  One,  sir,  which  I  remember.  I  was  asked  for 
the  People's — can't  remember  the  name — School. 

Mr.  Beale.  People's  Educational  Center? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  That  is  right — to  give  in  the  same  year  a  course 
in  radio,  war  radio,  documentary  radio,  which  once  a  week  I  did 
for  a  half  dozen  times,  and  that  was  the  last  I  ever  had  anything  to 
do  with  it.  That  was  not  an  organization,  but,  looking  back  again 
over  the  same  names,  the  constant  repetition  of  names,  Lawson, 
Maltz.  Dalton  Trumbo- 

That  was  some  girl  in  the  guild  who  asked  me  to  teach  there. 
And  when  I  had  arrived  in  Hollywood,  I  knew  no  one,  and  I  was 
alone,  and  I  wanted  to  help  as  I  had  helped  in  Washington  with 
the  war  effort. 

21546— 52— pt.  9 2 


In  all  this  speaking  at  the  Writers'  Congress  and  the  Hollywood 
Mobilization  and  lectures  on  radio,  there  seemed  to  me  to  be  the  ways 
by  which  I  could  help  the  war  effort.  But  at  that  time  I  had  no 
thought  of  or  identification  with  or  really  understanding  of  the 
Communist  Political  Association. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Now,  I  interrupted  you.  You  were  telling  the 
committee  of  your  joining  the  Communist  Political  Association  in 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  I  wish  you  would  tell  the  committee  just  what 
your  experience  was  in  the  Communist  Party,  where  you  met,  the 
names  of  persons  who  met  with  you. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  at  the  meetings  which  I  subsequently  at- 
tended, I  met  the  following  members.  I  have  them  written  down 
here,  if  I  may  read  them : 

Michael  Uris,  U-r-i-s,  Dorothy  Tree,  T-r-e-e,  Hugo  Butler,  Frank 
Tuttle,  Tanya  Tuttle,  Edward  Huebsch,  H-u-e-b-s-c-h,  Bernard  Vor- 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  was  that  name? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Vorhaus,  Vo-r-h-a-u-s,  Stanley  Roberts,  Herbert 
Biberman,  Michael  Wilson,  Paul  Trivers,  Jane  Trivers,  Meta  Reis, 
M-e-t-a  R-e-i-s,  Hetty  Vorhaus. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  How  do  you  spell  the  first  name  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  H-e-t-t-y,  I  believe. 

Jack  Berry,  Gale  Sondergaard,  Richard  Collins. 

Between  the  time  I  joined,  in  April  or  May  1945,  and  October  1945, 
I  attended  no  more  than  a  dozen  meetings.  I  took  no  political  assign- 

At  those  meetings  there  were  discussions  mostly  about  the  role  of 
the  cultural  worker,  and  I  would  sit  and  listen,  and  was  a  passive 
member,  inasmuch  as  I  was  given  no  political  assignments  of  any 
kind.  I  attended  no  fraction  meetings.  I  paid  only  the  basic  dues. 
And  I  refused  even  to  be  assessed  according  to  salary. 

Then,  in  October  1945,  I  left  for  New  York  City,  and  I  remained 
there  a  year. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Now,  just  at  that  point:  Where  was  your  meeting 
place  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  The  first  meeting  that  I  ever  attended,  in  the 
spring  of  1945,  was  at  the  home  of  Michael  Uris  in  Hollywood,  and 
geographically,  the  meetings  were  held  in  homes  adjacent  to  or  around 
that  district,  where  Mr.  Uris  lived,  and  those  homes  belonged  to  Ed- 
ward Huebsch,  Frank  Tuttle,  Herbert  Biberman,  Jack  Berry,  Paul 
Trivers,  and  Hugo  Butler. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  you  meet  in  the  homes  of  each  of  those  persons 
whose  names  you  have  just  mentioned  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  did,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  mean  by  that  statement  also  to  say  that 
each  of  those  persons  were  members  of  your  group  or  unit  of  the 
Communist  Party? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  do,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  And  these  meetings  to  which  you  referred :  Were 
they  Communist  Party  meetings? 


Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  they  never  mentioned,  until  1947, 1  think — 
they  always  spoke  of  the  association,  but  they  were  definitely  Com- 
munist Party  meetings,  each  and  every  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  state  that  at  those  meetings  they  discussed  the 
role  of  the  cultural  worker.  Will  you  define  that  a  little  more  ?  In 
what  direction  was  the  role  of  the  cultural  worker  being  aimed? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  Mr.  Roberts  and  I  used  to  fight  constantly 
on  this,  because  it  was  obvious  after  the  first  half  dozen  meetings  that 
we  attended  that  the  role  of  the  cultural  worker  Avas  to  obey  whatever 
the  party  told  you  to  do  as  a  writer.  You  were  supposed  to  have  no 
creative  thoughts  of  your  own.  You  were  supposed  to  use  your  talent 
for,  let  us  say,  a  strike. 

If  there  was  a  strike,  you  were  told  to  write  something  pro  or  con, 
whatever  the  party  position  was  at  that  time.  In  other  words,  the 
individuality  of  the  creative  writer  was  to  be  stamped  on,  and  your 
own  individual  position  was  never  taken  into  account.  And  this  was 
always  discussed  in  rather  abstract  terms,  too,  because  they  gave  you 
pamphlets  to  read.  And  not  being  very  talented  in  political  science 
or  in  economics,  I  couldn't  make  them  out,  and  from  the  very  begin- 
ning I  would  be  rebuked  for  my  inability  to  read'  or  comprehend  the 
material  that  they  gave  me  to  read.  I  was  in  a  group  which  never 
concretely  told  me  to  write  anything,  but  would  discuss  the  role  of  the 
cultural  worker  over  and  over  again  until,  frankly,  I  didn't  know 
what  the  devil  they  were  driving  at,  because  they  would  never  pin  it 
down  except  philosophically.  It  was  intellectualized  constantly.  I 
had  joined  thinking  that  there  would  be  concrete  liberal  activities 
which,  as  a  creative  writer  I  could  help,  even  as  I  had  in  war  work.  I 
thought  there  would  be  work  for  me  to  do.  And  they  did  nothing 
except  sit  and  discuss  pamphlets  on  the  role  of  the  cultural  worker 
constantly,  these  first  12  meetings,  before  I  went  to  New  York. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  you  consider  that  the  way  in  which  the  role  of 
the  cultural  worker  was  discussed  and  taught  was  an  effort  to  influence 
you  in  your  thinking? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  certainly  did. 

This  is  a  gradual  disillusionment,  of  course,  and  a  gradual  technique 
of  superimposing  a  whole  philosophy  and  a  whole  ideology  on  the 
individual  member,  so  that  whatever  he  thinks  gradually  works  ih  a 
vacuum  and  no  longer  obtains,  so  that  he  has  no  longer  any  ideas  of 
his  own. 

And  this  I  kept  sensing,  and  hoping  that  it  was  not  so.  Because, 
having  made  this  step,  idealistically,  and  believing  that  the  associa- 
tion was  following  Roosevelt's  policies,  and  since  they  were  very  smart 
and  used  many  of  the  liberal  phrases,  and  spoke  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  for 
quite  a  while,  I  kept  giving  them  that  second  chance. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Well,  if  the  Communist  Party,  through  its  efforts 
in  these  meetings,  could  be  successful  in  influencing  t-he  screen  writers 
in  their  thinking,  that  would  be  the  best  way  to  influence  the  context  of 
films,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  don't  think  it  could  be  done,  sir,  for  two  reasons. 
One,  the  vast  majority  of  screen  writers  are  highly  individual,  and 
most  of  the  ones  I  know,  including  myself,  have  always  wanted  to 
think  for  themselves      And  the  second  reason  is  that  the  way  the 


motion-picture  industry  is  organized,  there  would  be  too  many  factors 
which  would  not  allow  this  material  to  be  infiltrated  into  a  movie. 

I  myself,  in  these  groups,  never  heard  discussed,  for  instance,  the 
way  in  which  the  party  could  take  over  the  ideology  of  the  industry. 
This  I  never  did  hear. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  But  if  they  were  successful  in  influencing  the  think- 
ing of  some  of  the  individuals,  that  naturally  would  affect  their 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  That  is  true,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  And  although  the  Communist  Party  could  not,  be- 
cause of  the  mechanical  difficulties  and  because  of  the  fact  that  many 
of  you  were  independent  in  your  thinking,  succeed  in  actually  pro- 
ducing a  Communist  film,  yet  if  they  influenced  the  writer's  thinking 
they  could  influence  the  content  of  his  work.  It  would  be  bound  to 
influence  the  content  of  his  work,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  That  is  true,  sir.     That  is  true. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Now,  did  you  observe  anything  of  the  same  charac- 
ter in  the  work  of  the  League  of  American  Writers  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  no,  sir.  Because  I  never  attended  any 
meetings.  It  was  while  I  was  in  Washington.  I  was  merely  a  paid- 
up  member ;  that  is  all ;  and  never  attended  any  meetings  or  knew  any- 
one here  who  at  all  belonged.  I  had  no  activity  whatsoever  in  that 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  indicated  a  resentment  toward  the  effort  of  the 
Communist  Party  to  influence  the  way  in  which  you  would  carry  out 
the  work  of  your  own  profession. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  That  is  right,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  have  in  mind  any  particular  instances  in 
which  either  you  or  other  members  of  your  profession  were  influenced 
or  attempted  to  be  influenced  in  any  particular  way  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  No,  sir,  I  can't  remember  any  specific  illustration 
of  it;  merely,  as  you  said,  sir,  the  hope  that  from  these  discussions 
their  philosophy  would  so  be  superimposed  on  yours  that  automati- 
cally, I  presume,  as  you  wrote  you  would  orient  yourself  in  this  way. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  were  telling  the  committee  that  you  went  to 
New  York. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes,  sir ;  in  October  1945 1  left  for  New  York  City, 
and  I  remained  there  a  year.  I  had  not  asked  for  a  transfer.  I  paid 
no  dues  while  I  was  in  !Slew  York.  I  had  no  contract  whatsoever  with 
the  association,  personally  or  by  mail.  I  saw  no  association  members 
while  I  was  in  New  York.  I  was  working  on  a  play  during  that  time, 
and  I  had  no  political  activity  of  any  kind. 

I  returned  to  Hollywood  in  October  1946,  and  between  October  1946 
and  the  spring  of  1947, 1  attended,  oh,  at  most  I  should  say  five  meet- 
ings. I  had  no  political  activity  within  the  group,  and  continued  to 
just  remain  a  passive  member. 

I  do  remember  that  these  meetings  pertained  to  the  breaking  off, 
the  change,  from  the  association  into  the  party  again,  the  Duclos- 
Browder  conflict.  And  this  was  the  beginning  of  the  straw  that  broke 
the  camel's  back  as  far  as  I  was  concerned,  because  I,  from  the  very 
beginning,  championed  Browder's  attempts  at  collective  security,  the 
way  he  had  identified  with  what  I  thought  was  a  philosophy  of  gradual 
social  change,  the  united  front,  and  I  remember  Mr.  Biberman  and 
Mr.  Butler  attacking  Browder  as  the  party  chief.    And  I  became  con- 


fused  about  it.  I  argued  the  point  and  again  was  rebuked.  I  talked 
with  Mr.  Roberts  constantly  about  this  new  step;  because  we  had  fell 
that  Browder  had  tried  to  continue  Roosevelt's  liberalism.  And  sin* ■<■ 
this  had  been  the  reason,  the  continuance  of  liberal  ideals,  that  we  had 
joined  in  the  first  place,  we  were  pretty  upset  by  now. 

It  was  either  the  second  or  third  meeting  when  once  more  I  was  given 
pamphlets  to  read. 

I  remember  one,  I  believe,  was  by  Duclos.  I  know  there  was  one  by 
Foster  and  one  by  Stalin.  And  again,  I  went  home  and  tried  to  read 
them,  and  came  back,  and  they  asked  questions,  as  one  would  do  to  a 
pupil  in  school,  and  must  have  considered  me  an  idiot,  because  they 
rebuked  me  for  my  inability  to  have  comprehended  them.  They  were 
statistical  in  nature,  and  dealt  with  political  science.  And  they  tried 
to  make  me  once  more  agree  that  Browder,  in  some  way,  had  com- 
mitted some  kind  of  a  sin,  and  I  fought  them  on  that.  And,  oh,  weeks 
and  weeks  went  by  before  I  attended  the  last  meeting. 

It  was  the  spring  of  1947.  And  by  that  time  I  was  pretty  disillu- 
sioned and  disgusted  with  what  had  occurred.  And  in  May,  I  left 
Hollywood  again,  to  travel  through  the  Pacific  Northwest,  which  I 
did,  and  returned  in  the  last  part  of  September  or  the  beginning  of 
October  of  1947. 

I  was  pretty  convinced  by  this  time  that  there  was  nothing  any 
longer  that  I  could  identify  with,  nothing  that  I  believed  that  they 
were  telling  me. 

And  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Huebsch  wdio  called  me  up,  hearing  I  was 
back  in  town,  and  I  attended  one  meeting.    This  was  my  last  meeting. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Let  me  interrupt  you  at  that  point. 

You  stated  that  you  refused  to  pay  assessments.  Will  you  tell  us 
more  about  that?  What  effort  was  made  to  have  you  pay  assessments, 
and  what  assessments? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  I  don't  remember  the  percentages.  I  dc 
remember,  however,  that  where  I  believe  the  basic  dues  were  $2,  they 
would  want  a  portion  of  my  salary. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  remember  what  portion? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  No,  sir,  I  do  not.    No,  sir,  I  don't  know  the  per- 
centage.   Because  I  was  adamant  about  it,  and  merely  paid  the  basi< 
dues,  because  I  was  in  and  out  of  town  and  so  seldom  in  studios  by 
this  time  working. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Who  attempted  to  collect  assessments  from  you  \ 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  I  remember,  Mr.  Huebsch,  and  I  remember 
Tanya  Tuttle  and  Michael  Uris.  I  think  those  three  kept  the  money- 

Mr.  Tavenner.  To  whom  did  you  pay  your  dues,  your  $2  dues. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  The  treasurer.  I  am  not  sure  who  these  three  must 
have  been. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  In  the  discussions  that  took  place,  who  were  the 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Herbert  Biberman,  certainly,  I  would  call  the 
discussion  leader.  After  that,  I  suppose  Paul  Trivers  would  be  tin- 
next  most  vocal  member  of  the  group. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  stated  that  literature  was  given  you  to  read 
at  the  time  that  the  role  of  the  cultural  worker  was  being  discussed. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes,  sir. 


Mr.  Tavenner.  Can  you  remember  what  type  of  literature  it  was, 
or  the  names  of  the  pamphlets  that  were  given  you  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  don't  know  who  wrote  it,  but  I  remember  a 
pamphlet  just  called  the  Role  of  the  Cultural  Worker.  That  I  re- 
member. And  I  remember  a  pamphlet  by  Gorki  on  writing,  one  by 
Browder,  and,  yes,  one  by — am  I  correct — Magil. 

Mr.  Beale.  A.  B.  Magil. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  That  is  right,  sir. 

And  is  that  the  same  as  V.  J.  Jerome? 

Mr.  Beale.  No. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Because  there  was  one  by  that  gentleman,  too. 
I  remember  those. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  any  representatives  of  the  Communist 
Party  from  higher  levels  meeting  with  your  group  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  No,  sir,  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  know  how  your  particular  group  or  cell 
of  the  party  received  Communist  Party  instructions  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  I  heard  of  fraction  meetings,  but  never 
attended  any. 

Lawson's  name  was  constantly  being  mentioned.  It  was  he  who 
I  always  assumed  was  the  spearhead.  Because  whenever  any  point 
of  discussion  between  Biberman  and  Trivers  or  Michael  Wilson  came 
up,  it  would  be,  "Let's  see  Jack." 

So  I  presume  that  Mr.  Lawson  at  that  time  must  have  been  the 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Now  if  you  will  return  to  your  narrative  statement, 
you  stated  that  you  returned  in  1947. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  From  the  Pacific  area. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  That  is  right.  And  I  attended,  as  I  say,  one 
meeting,  and  one  last  meeting.  And  I  remember  being  surprised, 
because,  having  been  away  all  this  time  again,  instead  of  the  large 
group  there  were  only  five  or  six  members  present. 

I  believe,  I  know,  that  Michael  Wilson  was  there,  Jack  Berry, 
Edward  Huebsch,  Dick  Collins — Richard  Collins — and  I  am  not  sure, 
but  I  think  so  was  Michael  Uris.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it 
was  held  at  the  Jack  Berry  home  in  Hollywood. 

I  was  rebuked  again  for  having  gone  away  and  written  on  things 
that  I  wanted  to  write  on,  not  having  stayed  in  Hollywood,  and  I  paid 
little  attention  to  that  before  the  meeting  began.  And  there  was  a 
blast  at  the  United  Nations.  I  remember  that.  And  the  Marshall 
plan.  And  throughout  the  meeting,  I  sat  silently  and  disgusted, 
until  the  meeting  was  over,  and  then  Edward  Huebsch  came  over  to 
me  and  asked  me  why  I  had  been  away,  and  I  told  him,  and  then  I  was 
rebuked  because  I  had  been  delinquent  in  dues  while  I  was  gone,  and 
I  told  them  I  wasn't  paying  any,  and  I  also  told  them  that  I  was  plan- 
ning to  move  to  the  beach  to  write  a  novel,  and  that  I  was  not  going 
to  attend  any  more  meetings;  that  I  felt  that  the  time  had  come  when 
what  they  believed  in  and  what  I  believed  in  were  mutually  exclusive 
by  now,  and  it  was  over,  as  far  as  I  was  concerned. 

I  did  move  to  the  beach  in  May  in  1948,  and  in  those  months  in 
between  I  would  get  phone  calls  by  unfamiliar  voices,  contact  voices, 
I  would  suppose  you  would  call  them,  to  come  to  meetings,  and  "What 


was  the  matter?"     And  I  would  say  I  had  told  Mr.  Huebsch  I  did 
not  intend  coming  to  any  more.     And  I  didn't  do  so. 

I  moved  to  the  beach  to  write  my  novel,  and  some  time  in  the  spring, 
not  too  long  after  I  had  moved  to  the  beach,  someone  whose  name  I 
do  not  recall,  but  I  think  is  the  son-in-law  of  a  writer  called  Sonya 
Levine — I  don't  know  his  name,  and  I  may  even  be  wrong,  but  I  think 
that  is  who  it  was — visited  me  at  the  beach  and  asked  me  why  I  hadn't 
attended  meetings.  Once  more  I  repeated  that  I  had  no  intention  of 
doing  so. 

He  asked  me  for  back  dues.  I  refused.  I  remember  he  asked  me 
for  a  check  for  the  People's  World.  I  refused  that,  and  I  told  him 
I  was  no  longer  in  the  party,  and  that  my  novel  was  going  to  take  up 
all  my  time,  that  I  was  completely  against  what  the  party  now  stood 
for.  And  he  argued,  and  he  got  nowhere,  and  he  left,  and  that  was 
my  last  contact  with  any  member  of  the  association  or  party,  in  the 
spring  of  1948. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  this  cell  or  group  have  a  name? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  If  it  had,  sir,  I  never  heard  it.  I  don't  believe 
it  did. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  stated  that  you  were  reprimanded  for  writing 
things  that  you  wanted  to  write  about. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes.  For  instance,  if  I  wanted  to  write  of  any- 
thing that  had  no  what  the}'  loved  to  call  "social  content." 

And  a  writer  would  like  to  write  about,  oh,  almost  anything,  whether 
it  is  a  story  about  marriage  or  a  story  about  a  dog  or  anything  else. 

But  it  was  always:  "You  are  wasting  your  time.  You  should  be 
writing  as  a  cultural  worker.  You  should  be  writing'' — what  they 
would  suggest  you  write.  And  they  would  criticize  very  often  at 
meetings  those  well-known  writers,  for  instance,  who  at  one  time  had 
written  of  social  change  and  now  were  doing  so  no  longer,  you  see. 
And  any  creative  artist  worth  his  salt  can't  put  up  with  this  kind  of 
superimposition  very  long. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  reply  did  you  receive,  or  what  reaction  did 
you  receive,  when  you  advised  Ed  Huebsch  that  you  would  discon- 
tinue your  membership  in  the  Communist  Party? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  he  spent  about  10  to  15  minutes  after  that 
last  meeting  was  over  trying  to  give  me  every  intellectual  reason  why 
I  shouldn't,  and  said  that  he  would  meet  with  me.  I  told  him  it 
wouldn't  do  any  good,  and  he  never  did.  All  I  got  were  the  tele- 
phone calls. 

And  then  this  chap  who  came  down  to  the  beach  tried  to  argue; 
never  on  an  emotional  level,  always  on  a  kind  of — I  don't  know  why, 
a  high  intellectual  and  philosophical  line. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  I  believe  your  name  appeared  in  the  amicus  curiae 
of  the  brief. 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes;  it  did,  sir. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  In  the  Dalton  Trumbo  case. 

Will  you  tell  us  the  circumstances  under  which  your  name  was  used? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Well,  I  went  to  a  guild  meeting,  and  I  learned 
that  Judge  Arnold  had  been  hired  to  represent  the  guild  itself  as  a 
friend  of  the  court.  And  since  the  guild  itself  appeared  as  amicus 
curiae,  I  saw  no  reason  for  not  signing. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Were  you  afliliated  with  the  Committee  for  the 
First  Amendment? 


Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes,  sir.  One  night,  I  think  in  1947,  I  joined 
some  writers  and  helped  prepare  a  coast-to-coast  broadcast. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  At  whose  solicitation  did  you  join  in  that  effort? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  I  think — I  am  not  sure,  but  I  think  it  was  at  the 
solicitation  of  Millard  Lampell. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  you  take  part  in  the  work  of  the  Stockholm 
j)eace  petition  drive? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not,  nor  did  I  sign  it. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Waldorf  Conference  ? 1 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  No,  sir ;  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it  at  all. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Is  there  anything  else  that  you  wish  to  advise  the 
committee  or  that  you  can  advise  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Schoenfeld.  Yes. 

Since  1948,  I  have  actively  done  nothing  except  use  my  time  and 
energy  for  creative  writing,  and  I  have  repudiated  the  party,  because 
I  want  to  remain  an  individual  in  the  meaning  that  that  word  has 
attained  in  a  democracy.  And  I  would  recommend  that  the  Commu- 
nist Party  be  outlawed  and  also  that  in  order  to  keep  liberals  and  peo- 
ple of  good  will  from  having  my  experience,  a  greater  and  greater 
vigilance  be  made  in  finding  out  what  Communist-front  organizations 
still  exist  and  publicizing  such  Communist-front  organizations. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  would  like  to  say,  sir,  that  I  personally,  and  I  am  sure 
the  other  members  of  the  committee  who  are  not  present  here  now, 
join  in  these  sentiments:  We  are  very  grateful  to  you  for  taking  ad- 
vantage of  our  invitation  to  come  here  and  talk  to  us  out  of  your 
heart  as  you  have  about  your  experiences  in  this  organization. 

I  have  been  very  much  interested  in  your  reaction  and  particularly 
in  your  present  views,  which,  in  the  main,  coincide  with  the  recent 
practices  of  this  committee. 

For  the  very  valuable  information  you  have  given  us,  we  are  also 
grateful,  as  are  the  American  people.  Because,  after  all,  that  is  what 
we  are  trying  to  do  here,  aid  the  American  people  and  the  American 
Government  and  our  way  of  life  to  maintain  themselves  and  not  yield 
to  subversive  outside  influences  that  seek  to  destroy  us. 

We  appreciate  very  much  your  expression,  and  if  there  are  no  fur- 
ther questions  from  counsel 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  one  or  two  questions  I 
would  like  to  ask  in  executive  session. 

Mr.  Wood.  We  will  ask  you  to  remain  for  a  few  minutes  in  execu- 
tive session  after  we  adjourn  here,  then. 

(Whereupon,  at  11 :  40  a.  m.,  Tuesday,  August  19,  1952,  the  com- 
mittee proceeded  in  executive  session.) 

1  Cultural  and  Scientific  Conference  for  World  Peace,  arranged  by  the  National  Council 
of  the  Arts,  Sciences,  and  Professions,  and  held  at  the  Waldorf-Astoria  Hotel,  New  York 
City,  March  25-27,  1949. 


MONDAY,   SEPTEMBER   29,    1952 

United  States  House  of  Representatives, 

Subcommittee  of  the  Committee 

on  Un-American  Activities, 

Los  Angeles,  Calif. 


A  subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Un-American  Activities  met, 
pursuant  to  notice,  at  1 :  30  p.  m.  in  room  518,  Federal  Building,  Hon. 
John  S.  Wood  (chairman)  presiding. 

Committee  members  present :  Representatives  John  S.  Wood,  Fran- 
cis E.  Walter,  Morgan  M.  Moulder,  Clyde  Doyle,  James  B.  Frazier, 
Jr.,  and  Donald  L.  Jackson. 

Staff  members  present:  Frank  S.  Tavenner,  Jr.,  counsel;  Thomas 
W.  Beale,  Sr.,  assistant  counsel ;  Louis  J.  Russell,  senior  investigator ; 
William  A.  Wheeler  and  Charles  E.  McKillips,  investigators;  and 
John  W.  Carrington,  clerk.  • 

Mr.  Wood.  Let  us  have  order,  please. 

Mr.  Reporter,  please  let  the  record  show  that  acting  under  the  au- 
thority of  the  resolution  establishing  the  House  Committee  on  Un- 
American  Activities  of  the  Seventy-ninth  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  I  have  set  up  a  subcommittee  for  the  purpose  of  conducting 
hearings  beginning  in  Los  Angeles  today  and  composed  of  the  follow- 
ing members :  Representatives  Francis  E.  Walter,  Morgan  M.  Moulder, 
Clyde  Doyle,  James  B.  Frazier,  Jr.,  Harold  H.  Velde,  and  Donald  L. 
Jackson,  and  myself,  John  S.  Wood,  as  the  chairman,  all  of  whom  are 
present  with  the  exception  of  Representative  Velde,  who  is  expected  to 
arrive  later  in  the  day. 

In  this  connection,  I  desire  personally  to  express  my  very  deep  appre- 
ciation to  these  members  of  this  committee  who  have  left  their  respec- 
tive districts  in  this  election  year  where  the  general  election  is  so  near 
at  hand,  to  come  here  and  aid  in  the  discharge  of  this  very  important 
task  and  responsibility  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  placed 
upon  us. 

I  feel  that  I  bespeak  the  sentiments  of  the  law-abiding  American 
citizens  of  this  community. 

During  the  course  of  the  hearings  conducted  by  a  subcommittee  of 
the  Committee  on  Un-American  Activities  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives a  little  more  than  a  year  ago  in  this  room,  Mr.  Harold  Ashe, 
who  has  been  downtown  section  organizer  of  the  Communist  Party  in 
Los  Angeles  and  a  State  chairman  of  the  State  Central  Committee  of 
the  Communist  Party  testified  that  he  convinced  the  Communist  Party 

21546— 52— pt.  9 3  4261 


that  a  professional  unit  of  the  party  should  be  organized  in  Los 
Angeles.  Mr.  Ashe,  according  to  his  testimony,  organized  the  Com- 
munist Party  unit,  known  as  "The  One  Hundred,"  from  which  an- 
other Communist  Party  unit  designated  "The  One  Hundred  Fifty" 
was  formed. 

The  members  of  various  professions  were  recruited  into  these  pro- 
fessional units  of  the  Communist  Party  on  the  basis  that  their  identity 
would  not  be  exposed.  One  of  the  purposes  of  this  hearing  is  to 
ascertain  whether  this  organizational  work  begun  by  Mr.  Ashe  has 
developed  into  an  organized  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Communist  Party 
to  establish  Communist  Party  cells  within  various  professions  in  the 
Los  Angeles  area,  the  extent  and  nature  of  such  alleged  Communist 
Party  penetration  into  the  various  professions,  and  the  purpose  and 
objectives  of  the  Communist  Party  in  such  alleged  activities. 

Testimony  will  also  be  introduced  at  this  hearing  relating  to  the 
motion-picture  and  radio-entertainment  field.  Two  public  statements 
have  come  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  which  it  is  felt  are  de- 
serving of  public  mention  at  this  time,  and  incorporated  into  the  rec- 
ord of  this  proceeding.     I  will  read  from  a  public  release  as  follows : 

Following  is  an  official  statement  by  the  Hollywood  American  Federation  of 
Labor  Film  Council : 

"The  Hollywood  AFL  Film  Council,  composed  of  American  Federation  of 
Labor  unions  and  guilds  representing  more  than  27,000  workers  in  the  Hollywood 
motion-picture  studios,  condemns  in  the  strongest  possible  terms  certain  widely 
circulated  statements  by  the  so-called  Citizens'  Committee  To  Preserve  American 
Freedoms  and  the  so-called  Southern  California  Council  To  Abolish  the  Un- 
American  Committee. 

"These  two  groups  are  attempting  to  fool  the  public  into  thinking  that  A.  F. 
of  L.  unions,  and  specifically  A.  F.  of  L.  unions  in  the  motion-picture  industry, 
are  supporting  their  attacks  on  the  House  Un-American  Activities  Committee. 
The  unions  are  doing  no  such  thing.  These  A.  F.  of  L.  unions  are  strongly  anti- 

"The  same  interests  which  try  to  use  the  name  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  are  planning 
a  picket  line  on  Tuesday,  September  30,  to  protest  the  hearings  which  will  be 
conducted  at  the  Federal  Building  in  Los  Angeles  by  the  House  Un-American 
Activities  Committee.  The  hearings  seek  to  help  our  Nation  fight  Russian  im- 
perialistic communism  in  all  its  aspects. 

"No  A.  F.  of  L.  union  in  the  motion-picture  industry  will  support  nor  be  repre- 
sented in  the  picket  line.  None  of  our  unions  and  guilds  will  have  anything  to 
do  with  any  picket  line  or  any  other  line  which  seeks  to  undermine  our  America 
in  the  interest  of  Stalinist  Russia." 

I  read  also  a  statement  made  by  the  Motion  Picture  Industry  Coun- 
cil.    The  heading  of  it  is  "Once  and  for  All." 

Once  and  for  all,  let  it  be  made  clear  that  the  guild,  union,  and  management 
groups  of  Hollywood,  represented  in  the  Motion  Picture  Industry  Council,  re- 
pudiate any  attacks  upon  the  House  Committee  on  Un-American  Activities  made 
by  the  alleged  Citizens'  Committee  To  Preserve  American  Freedoms  or  any  other 
organizations  seeking  to  give  the  impression,  directly  or  indirectly,  that — by  op- 
posing those  who  would  expose  Communists  wherever  they  may  be — they  speak 
in  behalf  of  the  motion-picture  industry. 

This  so-called  Citizens'  Committee  has  implied,  in  a  trade-paper  advertise- 
ment, that  it  seeks  Hollywood  support  in  its  attacks  upon  the  House  Committee 
on  Un-American  Activities. 

We  denounce  the  actions  of  this  Citizens'  Committee.  We  condemn  its  tactics. 
We  repudiate  its  view,  as  we  have  repudiated  similar  views  in  the  past  by  the 
Arts,   Sciences,  and  Professions  Council. 

Representing  virtually  all  of  the  major  guild,  union  and  management'  groups 
of  Hollywood,  the  MPIC,  through  them,  speaks  for  the  overwhelming  body  of 
local  American  citizens  who  compose  the  motion-picture  industry. 


On  March  21,  1951,  the  full  membership  of  the  MPIG  gave  its  unanimous  ap- 
proval to  a  statement  which  declared : 

"The  MPIC  offers  its  strength  and  support  to  any  legally  constituted  body  that 
has  as  its  object  the  exposure  and  destruction  of  the  International  Communist 
Party  conspiracy. 

"The  MPIC  hopes  that  all  members  of  this  industry  who  have  been  subpenaed 
will  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  It  deplores  those 
who  stand  on  constitutional  privileges  to  hide  that  truth,  or  those  who  refuse  to 
recognize  the  authority  of  Congress. 

"To  those  men  and  women  of  this  industry  who  are  former  members  of  the 
Communist  Party  and  who  openly  admit  such  membership  and  conclusively 
prove  that  they  have  repudiated  utterly  and  forever  that  relationship,  the  MPIC 
offers  its  commendation  and  encouragement.     *     *     * 

"On  September  17,  1951,  the  MPIC  reiterated  that  statement,  declaring  that 
the  industry  'has  no  sympathy'  for  those  who  stand  on  the  first  and  fifth 
amendments  and  again  commending  those  who  give  the  House  Committee  on 
Un-American  Activities  their  sincere  cooperation  in  its  task  of  opposing  com- 

"Those  were  the  views  of  the  MPIC  on  March  21,  1951,  and  on  September 
17,  1951. 

"Those  views  have  not  changed  one  iota. 

"As  in  the  past,  we  support  the  House  committee,  hopeful  that  through  and 
as  a  result  of  its  hearings,  ways  and  means  will  be  provided  which  will  enable 
the  Nation  fairly,  legally,  and  effectively  to  deal  with  the  problem  of  Communist 
or  subversive  elements." 

Signed : 

The  Motion  Picture  Industry  Council  for:  Association  of  Motion  Picture 
Prodcers,  Hollywood  A.  F.  L.  Film  Council,  Independent  Motion  Picture  Producers 
Association,  Independent  Office  Workers,  Screen  Actors'  Guild,  Screen  Producers' 
Guild,  Screen  Story  Analysts'  Guild,  Screen  Writers'  Guild,  Society  of  Independent 
Motion  Picture  Producers,  Society  of  Motion  Picture  Art  Directors,  Unit  Pro- 
duction Managers'  Guild. 

I  would  like  also  at  this  time  before  beginning  the  hearings  to  make 
this  announcement  to  the  public.  We  are  here  at  the  direction  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  trying  to  discharge  the  duty  and  obli- 
gation that  has  been  placed  upon  us  by  the  Congress.  No  one  who  is 
present  here  or  who  will  be  present  in  this  room  during  these  hearings, 
except  the  witnesses  who  are  subpenaed,  are  required  to  be  here.  You 
are  here  by  the  permission  of  the  committee  and  not  by  compulsion 
of  the  committee.  This  committee  will  not  countenance  any  attempt 
to  make  a  demonstration,  either  favorable  or  unfavorable,  toward  the 
committee's  undertaking  or  to  what  any  person  called  as  a  witness  may 
have  to  say. 

I  do  not  say  this  in  any  spirit  of  threat,  but  if  such  conduct  should 
occur,  I  am  going  to  promptly  ask  the  United  States  marshal  to  eject 
those  who  start  or  participate  in  any  demonstration  in  this  hearing 
room,  and  if  necessary,  clear  the  entire  room. 

Mr.  Counsel,  who  will  you  call  ? 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Mr.  Roy  Huggins. 

Mr.  Wood.  Will  Mr.  Huggins  come  around,  please,  sir?  Will  you 
have  the  chair  right  up  here,  please,  Mr.  Huggins.  Will  you  hold 
your  right  hand  up  ?  Do  you  solemnly  swear  the  evidence  you  shall 
give  this  committee  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  do. 

Mr.  Wood.  Have  a  seat,  sir.  I  shall  ask  the  photographers  to  please 
refrain  from  taking  pictures  while  the  witness  is  being  sworn.    Do 


you  have  any  objection  to  the  photographers  taking  your  picture  at 
this  time  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  No,  I  don't. 

Mr.  Wood.  Very  well,  gentlemen.  You  -will  proceed  and  then  let  us 
get  along  with  the  testimony. 


Mr.  Tavenner.  What  is  your  name,  please,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Roy  Huggins. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  When  and  where  were  you  born,  Mr.  Huggins  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Lytle,  Wash.,  in  1914. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Where  do  you  now  reside? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Malibu  Beach. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Will  you  tell  the  committee,  please,  in  a  general  way 
what  your  educational  training  has  been  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  went  to  UCLA,  and  graduated  in  1939,  and  did  2 
years  of  graduate  work. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Could  you  speak  a  little  louder  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  did  2  years  of  graduate  work  from  1939  through 
1941  and  that  is  all  at  UCLA,  the  graduate  work. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  In  what  field  did  you  do  your  graduate  work? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  my  major  in  college  was  political  philosophy, 
but  my  graduate  work  was  done  in  public  administration. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Would  you  tell  the  committee  briefly  how  you  have 
been  employed  since  the  termination  of  your  graduate  work? 

Mr.  Wood.  Will  you  pardon  me  for  a  moment  ?  I  neglected  to  ask 
the  witness,  do  you  have  counsel  representing  you  ? 

Mr.  Huggin.  No;  I  don't. 

Mr.  Wood.  If  you  desire  to  have  counsel  at  any  time,  during  the 
progress  of  your  interrogation,  please  let  me  know. 

Mr.  Huggins.  All  right.    I  have  forgotten  the  question. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  I  asked  you  to  tell  us  the  field  in  which  you  spe- 
cialized while  in  college. 

Mr.  Huggins.  Political  philosophy. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  answered  that  question,  I  believe. 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  And  then  my  question  was:  How  have  you  been 
employed  since  completion  of  your  educational  training? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  was  employed  by  the  city  of  Los  Angeles  as  a 
personnel  technician,  and  I 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Would  you  give  the  approximate  dates,  please? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  think  it  was  in  1941,  just  after  I  left  UCLA.  I 
became  a  special  representative  of  the  United  States  Civil  Service 
Commission  from  1941  to  1943,  I  believe  it  was,  or  1944.  I  was  an 
industrial  engineer  in  1944,  I  think  it  was,  until  the  end  of  the  war. 
At  the  end  of  the  war,  I  started  writing,  and  I  have  been  a  writer  ever 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  stated  since  the  period  of  the  war  you  have 
been  engaged  in  work  as  a  writer.  In  what  general  field  have  you 
been  a  writer? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  wrote  about  100,000  words  of  fiction  for  the 
Saturday  Evening  Post,  and  I  have  written  three  novels,  and  several 
screen  plays. 


Mr.  Tavenner.  What  are  the  screen  plays  which  you  have  been 
•given  credit  for? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Too  Late  for  Tears,  The  Lady  Gambles,  Woman  in 
Hiding,  Sealed  Cargo,  story  credit  on  the  Fuller  Brush  Man,  and  the 
Good  Humor  Man,  and  there  were  others  but  I  can't  remember  now. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Mr.  Huggins,  this  committee  has  been  engaged  for 
some  time  in  the  investigation  of  Communist  Party  activities  in  the 
field  of  entertainment,  especially  in  that  field  which  relates  to  the 
moving-picture  industry.  The  committee  has  information  that  your 
connection  in  the  past  has  been  such  that  you  could  enlighten  the  com- 
mittee on  some  of  the  Communist  Party  activities  in  that  field.  So, 
I  wanted  to  ask  you,  first  of  all :  Are  you  now  a  member  of  the  Com- 
munist Party  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  No  ;  I  am  not. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Have  you  ever  been  a  member  of  the  Communist 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  I  have  been. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee,  first  the  circum- 
stances under  which  you  became  a  member  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  In  detail,  Mr.  Tavenner? 

Mr.  Tavenner.  I  think  that  it  should  be  in  detail,  at  least  in  detail 
enough  to  give  the  committee  a  clear  picture  of  what  transpires  when 
persons  in  your  position  are  induced  or  led  to  become  members  of  the 
Communist  Party. 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  became  a  member  of  my  own  volition ;  but,  if  I  can 
state  it  in  detail,  I  think  that  the  story  should  go  back  several  years 
before  I  became  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party.  I  was,  I  sup- 
pose, a  typical  American  citizen  when  I  started  school.  I  came  from 
a  Republican  background,  and  a  very  conservative  background,  arid  I 
was  very  indefinite  myself  to  politics  until  I  read  in  the  papers  about  a 
group  called  the  Nazis,  who  had  taken  power  in  Germany,  and  I  guess 
I  began  to  read  it  in  1934  and  1935. 

My  first  reaction  was  simply  disbelief  that  any  recognized  state 
could  be  using  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  persecution  of  a 
minority  group.  Even  though  I  was  not  myself  a  member  of  that 
minority  group,  I  still  thought  it  was  appalling  and  unbelievable,  and 
when  I  started  college  I  made  it  a  point  to  find  out  what  it  was  about, 
a  state  that  could  lead  it  to  that  kind  of  despicable  policy  in  which  it 
exploits  the  very  worst  in  human  beings. 

I  took  political  science,  and  I  suppose  that  was  one  of  the  reasons 
I  took  political  science,  because  it  did  strike  me  as  being  a  terribly 
important  problem,  and  I  came  to  understand,  I  thought,  the  nature 
of  the  German  state.  It  was  fascism.  I  think  I  could  have  been 
classified  as  a  premature  anti-Fascist,  and  I  can't  understand  how 
anyone  could  possibly  have  failed  to  be  a  premature  anti-Fascist  my- 
self, after  seeing  what  was  happening  in  Germany. 

I  went  to  UCLA  in  1937  from  a  junior  college,  and  changed  my 
major  to  political  philosophy.  At  that  time  my  politics  were  middle 
of  the  road,  and  I  just  had  a  great  faith  and  love  for  the  democratic 
system,  which  struck  me  as  being  the  opposite  of  fascism,  and  I  did 
not  know  very  much  about  communism. 

I  took  courses  from  a  professor  who  was  a  Marxist,  and  I  took  sev- 
eral courses  from  him,  and  all  of  his  courses,  not  only  in  political 


theory  but  in  anything  else,  whatever  courses  he  gave,  were  all  given 
from  the  Marxist  point  of  view. 

By  that  time  I  had  made  up  my  mind  I  was  going  to  be  a  teacher, 
a  college  professor.  So,  I  was  a  serious  and  hard-working  student, 
and  tins  professor  took  me  under  his  wing,  as  it  were,  and  made  me 
his  reader  and  gave  me  special  attention.  He  was  a  very  good  teacher, 
and  very  sincere,  and  he  was  not  a  Communist  that  I  know  of,  but  he 
was  a  Marxist.  This  was  in  1937  or  1938  or  1939,  and  I  think  the 
whole  world  was  pretty  troubled,  and  Marxism  has  a  wonderful 
thing  about  it,  in  that,  being  a  closed  system  of  thought,  if  you  feel 
great  despair  about  the  world  or  are  having  difficulty  understanding 
it,  Marxism  does  something  for  you.  It  suddenly  allows  the  whole 
universe  to  fall  into  a  nice  simple  pattern.  There  are  no  unanswered 
questions  once  you  become  a  Marxist.  It  is  a  nice  feeling,  particularly 
if  your  field  is  political  philosophy,  and  you  like  to  feel  that  you  do 
know  all  of  the  answers. 

I  became  a  Marxist,  I  guess,  sometime  in  1938  or  1939,  and  I  was 
a  very  hard-working  Marxist,  and  I  did  a  lot  of  reading,  not  in  Lenin 
and  Stalin;  I  was  not  particularly  interested  in  Lenin  and  Stalin, 
but  I  did  a  lot  of  reading  in  Marxist  theories,  and  especially  in  his 
methodology,  his  approach  to  all  phenomena,  in  which  he  had  an 
answer  for  everything. 

About  that  time,  at  that  time  of  course,  I  was  also  interested  in 
politics,  as  everyone  was  in  that  day,  and  my  politics,  I  guess,  were 
just  democratic,  and  I  was  in  favor  of  Eoosevelt's  foreign  policy  of 
"quarantining"  the  aggressors  as  he  stated  it  in  1937,  and  I  was  often 
asked  to  speak  at  big  student  meetings.  There  is  a  yearly  peace 
meeting  in  UCLA,  and  I  was  chairman  one  year,  and  the  chief  speaker 
another  year.  I  did  not  know  at  the  time,  but  I  suspect  now  that  the 
people  who  asked  me  to  speak  and  the  people  who  had  organized  and 
sort  of  taken  over  these  things  were  members  of  the  Communist  Party. 
But  I  knew  no  Communists,  and  I  was  stating  my  beliefs  which  were 
pro-American  and  anti-Fascist  and  pro-Roosevelt. 

I  graduated  in  1939,  and  I  applied  for  a  fellowship  and  so  I  could 
go  on  and  get  my  Ph.  D.  I  received  a  card,  mimeographed  card,  tell- 
ing me  my  grades  were  not  good  enough  for  a  fellowship,  and  that 
they  were  sorry.  This  was  the  awakening,  because  I  had  graduated 
a  member  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa,  and  I  have  a  diploma  that  says  "summa 
cum  laude"  in  a  class  of  several  thousand,  and  I  didn't  get  it.  So,  I 
took  my  little  mimeographed  card  up  to  the  political-science  depart- 
ment, and  I  found  a  graduate  student  up  there  whose  name  I  have 
forgotten,  but  he  and  I  knew  each  other,  and  we  went  down  to  Kirk- 
hoff  Hall  and  had  a  Coca-Cola,  and  he  told  me  I  should  know  better 
than  to  think  I  was  going  to  get  a  fellowship  when  I  was  also  a  Com- 
munist. And  I  did  not  believe  it,  but  I  made  a  few  other  little  in- 
quiries from  the  professors  who  were  not  very  clear  on  the  subject, 
but  I  gathered  from  what  they  did  not  say  that  I  was  refused  a  fellow- 
ship because  I  was  a  Communist. 

Now,  all  through  1939  I  had  been  getting  little  hints  from  people 
that  I  really  ought  to  become  a  Communist.  I  don't  know  whether 
it  was  Miss  Celeste  Strack,  who  was  a  well-known  Communist,  who 
was  talking  to  me  at  that  time  or  not,  but  I  know  whoever  it  was, 
they  kept  saying,  "Look,  you  are  a  Marxist,  and  therefore  you  should 
belong  to  the  Communist  Party."     And  I  remember  that  one  of  my 


answers  was  that  Sidney  Hook  was  a  Marxist,  and  he  did  not  belong 
to  the  Communist  Party  and,  in  fact,  he  wrote  articles  every  week 
condemning  it. 

Well,  he  was  a  different  kind  of  Marxist,  Well,  at  that  time  I  had 
discovered  the  differences,  and  I  read  Sidney  Hook  right  along  with 
all  of  the  other  Marxists,  and  found  them  to  be,  as  far  as  I  could  see, 
in  basic  agreement  about  what  Marxism  was  all  about,  and  so  I  did 
not  join  the  Communist  Party  and  I  knew  no  Communists,  and  I 
didn't  associate  with  Communists,  and  my  friends  were  all  fraternity 
brothers,  or  fraternity  boys,  at  least,  who  lived  with  me  down  at  the 
beach.  But  I  was  a  Communist  to  the  faculty  of  UCLA,  and  I  was 
refused  a  fellowship  on  those  grounds. 

I  was  already  fairly  despairing  of  democracy  at  that  time,  but  I 
did  not  do  anything  about  it,  but  in  1940  history  had  moved  also,  and 
I  think  every  democracy  in  any  large  industrial  nation,  except  Eng- 
land and  America,  had  now  fallen  to  fascism,  and  I  began  to  despair 
of  the  thing  that  I  had  felt  so  deeply  about,  the  democratic  system. 
I  had  been  a  victim  of  undemocratic  treatment,  and  I  was  just  naive 
enough  to  believe  that  it  was  impossible  that  this  could  not  really  have 
happened,  but  it  did  happen,  and  I  knew  it.  So,  when  I  got  back  to 
school  in  1940,  the  campaign  took  up  again,  and,  through  Celeste 
Strack  working  on  me  to  join  the  Communist  Party,  I  joined  the 
Communist  Party  sometime  in  1940.  I  think  that  I  attended  three 
meetings.  I  can't  remember  the  meetings  very  well,  but  I  do  remem- 
ber that  I  was  being  asked  to  picket  war  plants  and  being  asked  to 
engage  in  other  activities  which  were  hindering  our  preparedness 
program  and  to  do  what  I  could  to  oppose  draft  laws,  and  so  on  and 
so  forth". 

Well,  I  didn't  like  that.  I  found,  having  gotten  into  the  Com- 
munist Party,  that  I  did  not  agree  with  the  Communist  Party  line. 
I  was  a  Marxist,  but  apparently  not  a  Communist;  and  so,  after 
attending  three  or  four  meetings,  I  quit,  and  I  wrote  an  article,  which 
appeared  on  the  front  page  of  the  daily  college  paper,  condemning 
the  Communist  Party  position  in  toto. 

War  was  declared  later,  and  the  Communist  Party  line  changed, 
and  I  didn't  pay  any  attention  to  it ;  but,  with  the  declaration  of  war, 
I  left  college  and  I  tried  to  join  the  Marine  Corps,  and  I  was  rejected 
because  of  my  bad  eyesight.  I  think  I  tried  the  Navy,  too— I  am  not 
sure — and  I  was  rejected  there.  And  so  I  got  a  job  working  for  the 
city,  transferred  to  the  Federal  Government,  and  became  special  repre- 
sentative in  charge  of  recruitment  for  the  national  war  agencies  here. 

I  was  still  a  student  of  Marxism,  and  I  hoped  when  it  was  over  to 
go  back  and  get  my  Ph.  D.  in  political  philosophy,  and  I  was  still  a 
Marxist.  So,  around  1943,  the  political  climate  had  changed  rather 
severely,  and  Russia  was  our  ally,  and  I  wish  I  could  remember  those 
quotes  verbatim,  but  I  think  I  remember  them  well  enough  to  state 
them  here,  without  contradiction,  that  it  was  in  1943  or  maybe  1942 
that  General  MacArthur  made  his  statement  that  the  hope  of  the 
world  rests  upon  the  valiant  Red  army,  and  I  think  it  was  in  1943  that 
Eddie  Rickenbacker,  whose  love  of  country  is  hardly  questioned, 
said — and  this  was  quoted  in  Time  magazine  in  1943:  "When  the  war 
is  over,  Russia  will  emerge  as  one  of  the  world's  greatest  democracies." 

Patrick  Hurley,  Gen.  Patrick  Hurley,  in  1944,  said  in  regard  to 
China  that  the  Communists  are  not  Communist  at  all,  but  just  a  type 


of  democrat,  or  fighting  for  a  type  of  democracy,  or  something 
of  that  sort,  and  I  think  that  was  quoted  in  the  New  York  Times. 

Drew  Pearson  rounded  up  all  of  these  quotations  just  for  fun  one 
time  to  show  that,  when  you  thought  something  was  rather  important. 

There  were  others.  There  was  one  from  Admiral  Standley,  to  the 
effect  that  Russia  was  a  great  democracy. 

While  I  began  to  wonder  perhaps  if  I  had  gotten  into  the  Com- 
munist Party  and  gotten  out  without  giving  it  a  chance,  it  looked 
to  me  as  if  I  were  wrong  about  their  attitude  toward  democracy  and 
the  rest  of  it,  and  so  I  rejoined  the  Communist  Party  in  1943.  As  far 
as  I  could  see,  there  had  not  been  any  changes,  except  that  they  were 
now,  at  least — I  could  not  oppose  what  they  were  doing  and  saying 
because  they  were  selling  war  bonds,  and  they  were  talking  about  how 
to  prevent  strikes  in  the  factories,  and  they  were  a  very  patriotic 

I  attended  a  couple  or  three  meetings,  and  then  stopped  attending 
meetings,  because  I  think  that  I  felt,  as  a  Marxist,  I  really  ought  to 
get  into  this  thing  and  see  what  was  happening,  and  it  seemed  to  me 
being  a  Communist  was  a  part  of  being  a  Marxist,  and  this  I  think  was 
my  motivation ;  but  somehow  or  other,  after  doing  it,  I  couldn't  stay 
with  it,  and  so  I  attended  very  few  meetings.  In  fact,  I  suppose  not 
more  than  five  or  six  meetings  in  the  next  2  or  3  years.  I  suppose  I 
retained  my  membership  accordingly. 

In  1946, 1  became  a  writer,  and  I  became  a  member  of  the  Authors' 
Guild,  and  I  think  it  was  the  first  time  I  ever  joined  anything  besides 
the  Communist  Party.  I  became  a  member  of  the  steering  commit- 
tee of  the  Authors'  Guild  here  on  the  coast,  and  the  chairman  of  that 
committee  was  Albert  Maltz. 

After  a  meeting  one  night,  after  a  meeting  of  the  steering  com- 
mittee of  the  Authors'  Guild,  Albert  Maltz  asked  me  to  have  a  drink 
with  him  in  the  bar  of  the  hotel,  and  we  talked  for  a  while,  and  it 
came  out  that  he  understood  that  I  was  in  some  way  still  a  member  of 
the  Communist  Party,  and  not  attending  meetings  or  anything,  and 
why  didn't  I.  I  gave  him  my  reasons :  that  it  didn't  mean  anything 
to  me;  that  I  saw  no  reason  why  I  should.  He  asked  me  if  I  were 
a  Marxist,  and  I  said  "Yes,"  and  he  asked  me  if  I  would  allow  him  to 
transfer  me  to  the  Hollywood  group.  And  I  said  "I  didn't  think  so." 
We  had  meetings,  I  guess  fairly  regularly,  of  the  Authors'  Guild,  and 
after  each  meeting  Albert  Maltz  would  ask  me  if  I  had  changed  my 
mind,  and  he  gave  a  glowing  picture  of  the  stimulation  and  under- 
standing and  the  new  understanding  I  would  have  of  Marxism  if  I 
came  into  this  group,  which  was  made  up  of  highly  intelligent  people, 
and  finally,  sometime  toward  the  end  of  1946,  I  said:  "All  right;  tell 
me  where  to  go,  and  I  will  come  to  one  of  your  meetings." 

Well,  he  said,  "It  will  take  a  little  time,"  and  so  I  think  it  was  a  few 
weeks  later  I  was  told  to  attend  a  meeting  of  the  Communist  Party  in 
Hollywood,  winch  I  did,  and  for  the  first  time  in  my  connection  with 
the  Communist  Party  I  started  attending  meetings  fairly  regularly. 
I  think  in  the  period  of  9  months  or  so  that  I  was  a  member  of  the  Com- 
munist Party  in  Hollywood  I  must  have  attended  a  dozen  or  two 
dozen  meetings.  It  was  sufficient  to  know  something  about  the  Com- 
munist Party  at  last- 

I  discovered  the  usual  things:  That  there  was  certainly  no  de- 
mocracy in  the  Communist  Party;  decisions  were  brought  down  and 


rendered  or  Ave  found  out  about  them  by  having  to  read  the  [Commu- 
nist] press,  which  I  could  not  bear  reading,  and  I  was  supposed  to  read 
the  Daily  Worker,  and  J  think  I  took  it  for  a  while,  but  I  do  not  read 
it,  and  1  was  also  supposed  to  read  Political  Affairs,  or  something  like 
that,  which  was  on  a  little  higher  level,  but  still  was  opinionated  and 
without  much  force,  I  felt. 

Discussions  in  the  group  seemed  to  be  or  to  consist  of  restatement 
in  slightly  different  wording  of  things  that  were  appearing  and  the 
tilings  I  was  being  asked  to  read.  Any  difference  of  opinion  was  im- 
mediately pounced  upon  with  name-calling  and  all  of  the  rest  of 
the  things  that  you  have  heard  about  so  many  times  before.  But  no 
one  ever  disagreed  really.  They  might  tentatively  disagree,  and  then 
im mediately  withdraw  it,  very  quickly  withdraw  when  they  got 
pounced  upon  by  the  chief  intellectual  of  the  group. 

At  the  same  time  history  was  moving  forward,  and  I  was  making  a 
big  change  in  my  basic  philosophy. 

In  f947  a  lot  of  things  were  happening;  the  cold  war  had  started; 
the  U.  N.  was  a  total  loss  because  of  Russian  vetoes,  and  I  think  that 
by  the  time  I  got  out  of  the  Communist  Party  they  had  used  the  veto 
about  two  dozen  times  on  crucial  issues,  and  I  had  great  faith  in  the 
U.  N.  It  looked  to  me  as  if  it  were  being  destroyed.  Russia  was 
refusing  to  have  anything  to  do  with  control  of  the  atomic  bomb, 
which  appalled  me,  and  then  sometime  late  in  1947  they  suddenly 
reformed  the  Communist  Internationale,  and  I  quit  the  Communist 

This  time  I  quit  no  longer  a  Marxist,  for  reasons  both  that  I  could 
have  found  in  the  first  place  if  I  had  read  with  less  of  an  eager  eye,, 
and  for  reasons  of  history.  The  historical  reasons  were  now  it  became 
pretty  obvious  that  the  Soviet  Union  was  not  the  hope  of  the  world  or 
the  hope  of  democracy  or  anything  else,  but  was  an  imperialist  power. 
I  used  to  believe  in  the  early  days,  in  1943,  when  I  went  back  in,  that 
the  only  reason  that  the  Soviet  Union  was  not  democratic  was  because 
it  was  surrounded  by  enemies  like  Germany  and  Japan,  and  so  on, 
and  it  was  on  a  wartime  footing,  and  that  was  the  reason  for  it.  But 
it  got  worse  as  we  all  know  after  the  war  was  over,  and  it  had  no 
enemies  surrounding  it  at  all.  Its  attacks  on  every  kind  of  freedom 
of  thought  increased,  its  attitude  toward  other  peoples  became  clear 
in  its  dealings  with  all  of  its  border  nations,  Poland,  Yugoslavia,  and 
Hungary,  and  the  six  so-called  satellite  states,  and  it  had  moved  in  and 
destroyed  all  freedom  and  had  shot  several  leaders  of  those  nations. 

There  were  a  good  many  things  happening  at  that  time,  all  of  them 
seemed  to  be  building  up  and  I  can't  even  remember  them  all,  but  it 
was  obvious  to  me  that  there  was  no  hope  that  the  future  was  held  in 
the  hand  of  the  Soviet  Union. 

It  is  a  terrible  thing  when  you  finally  realize  the  great  gap  between 
the  grim  realities  and  your  vision  of  an  ideal  future.  It  is  hard  to 
realize  it,  and  it  takes  a  little  time.  But  I  did  finally  realize  it,  and 
when  I  realized  it  on  a  historical  level,  I  also  realized  it  on  a  theoretical 
level,  and  I  realized  finally  what  the  basic  flaw  in  the  Marxist  philos- 
ophy was,  and  it  is  simply  this.  I  think  it  might  be  important  to  get 
this  on  the  record,  and  I  think  it  is  clear. 

Marx  states,  first  Marx  sets  up  a  methodology  which  is  fairly  sound 
and  he  made  a  lot  of  predictions  which  came  true.  Then  Marx  gets 
into  the  way  of  the  future,  away  beyond  his  time,  with  statements 


about  the  nature  of  the  Communist  state,  and  the' foundation  stone, 
the  moral  foundation  of  Marxism  was  the  Maxist  theory  which  I  be- 
lieve was  scientifically  founded,  and  I  believe  that  Marxism  was  a 
science,  and  that  Marxist  theory  called  the  withering  away  of  the 
state,  was  founded  on  scientific  principles,  which  Marxism  I  thought 

Well,  it  is  obvious  to  anyone  who  wants  to  look  that  the  state  is  not 
withering  away,  in  the  Soviet  Union,  that  it  is  getting  more  tyrannical 
every  day,  and  it  seemed  obvious  to  me  then  finally  in  1947  that  Marx- 
ist theory  of  the  withering  away  of  the  state  was  just  a  mystical  and 
metaphysical  thing,  and  had  no  foundation  whatever  in  scientific  fact. 
It  seemed,  too,  if  you  accepted  all  of  his  a  priori  conclusions  about  the 
economic  determination  of  history  and  the  reason  why  there  were 
states,  and  Marx  said  the  reason  why  there  are  states  is  because  there 
are  classes,  and  when  there  are  no  more  classes  there  cannot  be  more 
states,  because  there  is  no  need  for  a  state,  and  all  of  this,  if  you  accept 
it,  then  you  go  right  on  and  say  that  it  must  be  true,  and  the  Soviet 
Union  will  some  day  be  a  great  democracy.  But  it  is  obvious  that  it 
is  not.  It  is  obvious  that  Marx's  statements  are  simply  unfounded, 
and  that  it  isn't  true  and  it  isn't  proved  that  if  you  have  no  classes  that 
you  won't  need  a  siate,  and,  in  fact,  the  contrary  has  been  proved  by 
the  Soviet  Union,  where  I  don't  believe  they  do  have  any  classes,  they 
have  just  one  class,  but  they  have  a  state  in  the  Soviet  Union,  and  that 
state  is  getting  more  and  more  powerful  and  more  and  more  tyrannical 
every  year. 

I  can't  see  how  it  can  possibly  cease  to  be  that.  It  must  go  on  get- 
ting more  and  more  tyrannical  until  finally  it  is  lost  in  some  way  or 
other.  So  I  left  the  Communist  Party  in  1947  finally,  no  longer  a 
Marxist  nor  a  Communist. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Let  me  interrupt  you  there  a  moment.  Do  you  at- 
tribute your  present  disagreement  with  Marxist  theory  to  your  experi- 
ence within  the  Communist  Party? 

Mr.  Huggins.  No;  it  is  partly  that,  because  certainly  the  fear  and 
the  complete  absence  of  any  kind  of  integrity  was  made  clear  to  me 
in  the  Communist  Party.  A  man  cannot  think  for  himself  in  the 
Communist  Party.  He  must  abrogate  that  privilege,  and  do  it  will- 
ingly on  some  theoretical  ground.  They  seldom  state  it  so  coldly  as 
that;  but  actually  that  is  what  is  behind  it.  They  are  in  a  constant 
state  of  crisis,  and  they  recognize  that  in  a  crisis  certain  attitudes  must 
be  taken,  and  you  don't  have  time  to  argue,  and  the  way  they  get 
around  the  fact  that  it  is  always  like  that  is  that  there  is  always  a 
crisis.  But  it  was  not  the  experience  in  the  Communist  Party  that 
convinced  me  or  made  me  cease  to  be  a  Marxist.  It  was  history, 
and  I  suppose  it  is  just  the  fact  that  one  day  I  woke  up  and  de- 
cided to  think  about  something  else,  you  know.  Once  you  get  into  a 
closed  system  of  thought  it  takes  more  than  fact  to  get  you  out  of  it, 
and  it  takes  something  else,  and  it  takes  a  real  jarring  experience  of 
some  kind  to  get  you  out  of  it,  and  then  once  you  are  out  of  it  a  lot  of 
things  become  obvious  that  should  have  been  obvious  in  the  first  place. 

Mr.  Tavennek.  Then  from  history  and  from  your  experience  in  the 
Communist  Party  you  concluded  that  there  were  flaws  in  the  Marxist 
theory,  which  finally  resulted  in  your  disillusionment  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Right.  I  suppose  there  was  a  positive  side  to  this 
thing.     One  is,  in  1917  I  realized  that  the  Marxism  was  not  a  science, 


but  that  it  was  actually  based  upon  some  a  priori  assumptions,  which 
if  you  accept  then  you  accept  all  of  Marxism,  and  if  you  accept  the 
theory  that  almost  all  social  phenomena  of  our  world  stem  from  the 
existence  of  classes,  if  you  accept  that,  and  if  you  accept  his  theory 
that  all  phenomena,  even  thought,  is  determined  by  the  economic  struc- 
ture of  the  society,  if  you  accept  that,  then  you  go  ahead,  and  you  ac- 
cept the  rest  of  Marxism. 

I  realize,  like  all  closed  systems  of  thought,  once  you  find  a  hole 
in  it,  then  you  realize  that  it  is  all  wrong,  because  that  is  the  na- 
ture of  a  closed  system  of  thought.  You  must  either  accept  it  all 
without  question,  or  you  do  not  accept  any  of  it,  and  this  is  recognized 
by  the  Communists. 

There  are  no  Communists  who  say,  "Well,  I  am  a  Marxist,  but  I 
don't  accept  this  particular  theory  of  Marx,"  and  if  you  don't  accept 
that  theory,  you  are  not  a  Marxist,  and  you  are  not  a  Communist  if 
you  don't  go  along  with  every  bit  of  the  theory. 

So  I  think  it  is  in  the  nature  of  the  things  that  once  you  find  one 
big  flaw,  then  you  suddenly  realize  that  that  is  just  a  resultant  flaw  of 
other  flaws. 

I  think  it  has  been  proved  that  you  don't  need  classes  in  order  to 
have  a  tyrannical  society,  a  society  that  is  like  a  class  society,  as  Marx 
would  describe  class  society. 

The  other  thing  on  the  positive  side  is  this,  that  as  I  said  when  I 
started  talking,  my  reason  for  first  joining  the  Communist  Party  was 
a  great  despair  for  the  democratic  system.  I  began  to  think  that  the 
choice  might  be  not  democracy  versus  fascism,  but  maybe  fascism  ver- 
sus communism.  This  is  how  it  began  to  look  to  me.  That  is  because, 
as  I  said,  every  nation  except  England  and  America  had  fallen  to  fas- 
cism, every  industrial  nation.  I  had  myself  been  victimized  and 
called  a  Communist  when  I  was  not  one,  which  seemed  to  me  without 
a  hearing  highly  undemocratic,  in  an  institution  where  you  expect  it 
to  be  very  democratic,  and  that  is  a  state  university.  So  I  was  in  a 
great  state  of  despair  for  the  democratic  system  in  1940,  as  a  good 
many  people  were. 

I  think  in  1948  and  1949  and  1950  it  is  becoming  ever  more  clear 
that  democracy  has  a  heck  of  a  lot  more  vitality  and  strength  than  a 
lot  of  people  thought  in  1940,  when  so  many  nations  had  fallen  to 

I  am  now  of  the  firm  belief  that  we  have  just  witnessed  the  first  act 
in  the  history  of  free  democracy,  and  that  it  has  a  long  way  to  go. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Your  views,  then,  with  regard  to  your  former  de- 
spair for  democracy  have  changed  materially? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes;  because  of  what  has  been  happening  in  the 

Mr.  Tavenner.  In  speaking  of  the  flaw  of  Marxism,  what  was  the 
flaw  which  you  discovered,  and  which  changed  your  basic  thinking 
on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  the  basic  flaw  was  the  theory  that  I  would  say 
is  basic  to  Marxism  of  the  withering  away  of  the  state.  He  stated 
that  once  the  proletarian  revolution  has  come  about  the  state  will 
begin  to  wither  away,  and  you  eventually  get  great  free  democracy 
in  a  pure  kind  of  democracy. 

Well,  here  it  was  1947,  and  I  don't  know  how  many  years  after  the 
Communist  revolution  that  was,  but  the  state  was  going  in  the  opposite 


way  yet,  and  it  had  always  been  going  that  opposite  way,  toward  a 
tighter  and  tighter  dictatorship,  and  a  greater  and  more  medieval 
kind  of  tyranny,  and  it  was  still  going  that  way  and  it  still  is  today. 
That  was  the  major  flaw.  It  was  obviously  a  flaw  and  obvious  that 
Marxist  theory  was  mystical  and  not  founded  upon  scientific  fact. 

Mr.  Tavexner.  Did  you  observe  during  your  experience  in  the  Com- 
munist Party  that  the  Communist  Party  program  or  line  followed 
that  of  the  Soviet  state,  or  was  dictated  by  the  Soviet  state  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  I  think  it  is  obvious.  Every  change  of  the  party 
line  has  always  come  immediately  after  a  change  in  foreign  policy  of 
the  Soviet  Union.  When  the  Soviet  Union  decided,  and,  of  course, 
this  was  before  my  time,  but  I  know  now  from  history,  that  when  the 
Soviet  Union  decided  to  try  to  form  an  alliance  against  fascism  that 
the  Communist  Party  line  immediately  changed  to  one  of  supporting 
whatever  government  in  whatever  country  they  existed,  whatever  gov- 
ernment was  willing  to  go  along  as  an  ally  of  the  Soviet  Union. 

Then  when  the  Soviet  Union  signed  a  pact  with  Nazi  Germany, 
the  nonaggression  pact,  the  line  immediately  changed  overnight.  I 
was  not  a  member  then,  either,  but  I  can  remember  very  well  I  was 
studying  in  summer  school  up  at  Berkeley,  and  I  remember  very  well 
that  some  of  the  people  that  I  had  met  up  there  were  busy  running 
around  trying  to  pick  up  pamphlets  that  they  had  laid  on  doorsteps 
calling  for  a  third  term  for  President  Roosevelt,  and  they  were  trying 
to  get  them  back  again.  The  line  had  changed  as  they  put  them  on 
the  doorsteps. 

Mr.  Tavexner.  Is  it  not  correct  to  say  in  the  line  of  what  you  have 
just  stated  that  if  a  person  were  a  devout  member  of  the  Commu- 
nist Party  he  would  sooner  or  later  have  to  take  a  definite  stand  in 
behalf  of  the  Soviet  Union  and  against  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  think  that  is  obvious  now.  When  I  joined, 
in  1940,  it  seemed  to  me  that  that  is  what  I  was  being  asked  to  do, 
and  that  is  why  I  quit,  after  such  a  very  short  membership,  because  I 
was  unwilling  to  make  that  choice,  or  even  to  grant  that  that  choice 
was  necessary. 

My  feeling  about  Marxism  was  that  it  was  a  great  methodology, 
but  as  far  as  any  revolutions  went  I  thought  they  would  come  when 
my  grandchildren  were  around,  if  they  came  at  all,  and  I  didn't  look 
upon  it  as  a  thing  that  was  going  to  happen  tomorrow  on  Seventh 
and  Broadway.  I  was  interested  in  Marxism  as  a  methodology,  and 
when  I  went  into  the  party  and  I  was  asked  to  make  what  I  felt  was 
to  take  a  position  that  I  felt  was  contrary  to  the  best  interest  of  this 
country  I  quit.  Of  course,  it  was — their  position  then  was — "Let  us 
not  help  anybody,  and,  in  fact,  let  us  help  the  Germans,"  and  I  had  a 
vision  of  our  being  left  alone  to  fight  the  Nazis. 

I  think  today  that  same  thing  exists,  and  in  fact  I  would  say  that 
with  the  reestablishment  of  the  Comintern  in  1947,  which  is  the  part 
where  I  got  out,  I  would  say  from  that  point  on  membership  in  the 
Communist  Party  automatically  constituted  a  subversive  position. 

Mr.  Doyle.  What  year  would  that  be? 

Mr.  Huggins.  In  1947,  that  is  the  year  they  restablished  the  Comin- 
tern, and  they  called  it  the  Cominform. 

Mr.  Wood.  Membership  in  the  Communist  Party  means  enmity  to 
the  United  States  Government? 


Mr.  Huggins.  I  think  that  that  is  obvious.  I  don't  think  that  there 
is  any  question  that  the  Communist  Party  line  is  dictated  by  the  needs 
of  the  Soviet  Union,  and  history  proves  it  all  along  the  line.  If  that  is 
true,  then  it  seems  to  me  that  today  you  cannot  be  a  loyal  American 
and  be  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party.    It  is  impossible. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  We  have  heard  a  great  deal  said  by  the  Communist 
Party  about  a  so-called  form  of  democracy  within  the  party,  that  is  in 
the  way  of  procedure.  They  call  it  democratic  procedure,  and  freedom 
of  thought,  notwithstanding  these  hearings  have  developed  many, 
many  instances  where  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  thought  control 
is  a  specialty  of  the  Communist  Party. 

What  are  your  views  on  that  subject  from  your  experience  in  the 
party  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  they  claim  that  there  is  in  the  Communist  Party 
a  thing  called  democratic  centralism,  which  means  that  discussion  takes 
place  about  a  problem  and  reports  are  made,  and  I  suppose  on  up  the 
line,  that  is  the  theory,  and  as  a  result  of  those  discussions  a  decision 
is  made,  and  once  the  decision  is  made,  there  is  no  more  discussion  or 
argument.  You  accept  the  decision.  I  didn't  see  it  work.  I  imagine 
altogether  I  attended  30  meetings  of  the  Communist  Party  in  all  of 
my  membership  in  it,  and  in  none  of  those  30  meetings  did  I  ever  hear 
anything  discussed  before  it  became  a  policy.  It  was  only  after  it  be- 
came a  policy,  and  then  it  was  a  matter  of  being  sure  everybody  under- 
stood it  right.    That  is  all. 

So  I  would  say  that  there  is  no  semblance  of  this  so-called  democratic 
centralism  in  the  Communist  Party. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Now,  do  you  have  any  personal  knowledge  of  how 
those  decisions  were  reached  at  the  top,  and  handed  down  to  the  rank 
and  file  members? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  don't  know  how  they  were  reached.  I  think 
the  method  of  handing  them  down  was  just  through  the  press.  As  far 
as  I  could  see,  during  my  time  here  in  Hollywood  and  in  the  Hollywood 
group,  they  got  it  all  from  the  press,  from  their  magazines  that  were 
brought  to  the  meeting  and  you  were  asked  to  read  them. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Considerable  evidence  has  been  heard  by  the  com- 
mittee as  to  the  part  that  the  Daily  Worker  and  other  organs  of  the 
Communist  Party  played  in  handing  down  the  directives  received  from 
foreign  sources.  It  was  a  corporation,  according  to  the  testimony, 
set  up  in  New  York  City  which  received  cables  and  which  were  in  turn 
printed  by  the  Daily  Worker.  I  assume  they  were  printed  by  the 
other  organs  of  the  Communist  Party,  and  through  that  method  it  was 
that  the  Communist  Party  directives  were  handed  down. 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  that,  Mr.  Tavenner. 

Mr.  Jackson.  May  I  ask  a  question,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

In  that  connection,  is  it  not  true  that  following  on  such  world  mov- 
ing or  party  moving  events  as  the  denunciation  of  the  Nazi-Soviet 
nonaggression  pact,  and  the  Duclos  letter,  that  a  vast  pall  of  silence 
would  fall  on  the  comrades  for  several  days  until  they  were  able  to 
determine  just  exactly  what  the  word  was? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Exactly.  There  would  be,  as  you  say,  just  a  silence, 
and  no  one  knew  what  to  say,  and  apparently  everyone  was  afraid  to 
say  anything,  because  I  was  asked  to  come  to  a  meeting,  and  I  hadn't 
been  to  a  meeting  for  a  year  or  so,  but  I  thin]?  about  the  time  of  the 


Duclos  letter  someone  called  me  and  said,  "We  would  like  you  to  come 
to  a  meeting.  "We  are  going  to  discuss  this  thing."  No  one  knew  what 
to  say.  They  were  just  waiting  to  be  told.  Once  they  were  told,  those 
who  had  previously  been  so  outspoken  along  this  line  were  now  just 
as  outspoken  along  this  line.  They  always  seemed  to  have  a  ready 
answer  as  to  why  they  made  the  mistake,  which  I  was  never  able  to 

Mr.  Jackson.  That  is  democratic  centralism  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Were  you  familiar  with  any  instances  such  as  that 
which  occurred  to  Budd  Schulberg,  when  Charles  Glenn  published 
the  very  complimentary  article  that  this  is  the  novel  that  Hollywood 
has  been  waiting  for,  and  then  within  a  week  was  compelled  to  reverse 
his  entire  line,  and  destroy  all  that  he  had  built  up  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  No;  I  know  the  Maltz  situation  was  similar  to  that, 
but  that  was  before  I  went  in  there.  By  the  time  I  got  in,  no  one  was 
talking  about  that  any  more.  They  did  seem  to  be  a  little  displeased 
with  the  sort  of  thing  I  wrote.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  one  of  the 
members  implied  once  that  my  stuff  was  sort  of  Fascist  writing,  and 
I  wrote  hard-boiled  novels,  so-called  hard-boiled  novels,  which  they 
did  not  like  very  well,  and  they  wanted  to  know  why  I  didn't  write 
something  good.  I  said,  "Well,  you  bring  me  into  this  thing,  you 
know,  and  then  you  ask  me  to  write  something  good,  and  it  is  like 
recruiting  a  house  painter  and  then  handing  him  a  palette  and  some 
oil  paints  and  saying,  'Here,  paint  canvases  now.'  "  That  is  about 
how  I  felt  about  it. 

My  writing,  I  felt,  was  a  commercial  type  of  writing,  and  I  didn't 
consider  myself  to  be  an  artist,  and  so  they  gave  up,  but  there  was 
a  good  deal  of  propaganda  within  that  Hollywood  group  about  the 
time  I  was  there,  to  get  all  of  the  members  to  write  proletarian  novels, 
and  this  seemed  to  be  the  line.  They  took  no  political  stands  on  any- 
thing in  the  Hollywood  group,  and  the  other  groups  that  I  belonged 
to  during  the  war  were  just  interested  in  selling  war  bonds  and  stuff 
like  that.  The  Hollywood  group  was  interested  only  in  Hollywood, 
and  they  never,  as  far  as  I  know,  had  a  discussion  of  world  politics. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Incidentally,  you  referred  to  your  membership  in 
the  Authors'  League  or  the  Authors'  Guild.  Was  it  guild  or  was  it 
league  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  The  Authors'  Guild,  which  is  a  member  of  the  Au- 
thors' League. 

Mr.  Moulder.  May  I  ask  a  question  ?  As  I  understand  from  your 
association  and  experience  with  the  Communist  Party,  the  Communist 
line  is  antidemocratic;  is  that  so? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes;  it  certainly  is.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  ad- 
mittedly antidemocratic  in  the  terms  of  what  we  mean  by  democ- 
racy, but  they  then  claim  to  have  their  own  type,  which  will  come 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  spoke  of  your  early  training  at  the  university 
and  the  professor  who  was  a  Marxist.  I  understood  you  to  state 
that  in  your  opinion  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party. 
Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Huggins.  That  is  right. 


Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  know  whether  he  had  associated  with  him 
in  that  work  a  person  who  has  been  the  subject  of  considerable  testi- 
mony before  this  committee? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes;  when  I  was  a  student  at  UCLA,  an  assistant 
in  the  department  was  Bernadette  Doyle.  I  worked  with  her;  that 
is,  she  was  reading  papers  in  some  of  the  courses  that  I  took,  and 
now  and  then  she  would  give  a  lecture. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  she  ever  appear  before  Communist  Party  meet- 
ings at  which  you  were  present  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  She  never  mentioned  the  Communist  Party.  She 
may  have.  She  may  have  asked  me  a  couple  of  times  why  I  didn't 
join  the  Communist  Party,  but  I  don't  even  remember  it  actually,  and 
she  may  have.    But  that  was  left  up  to  other  people. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  When  you  became  a  member  of  the  party  on  the 
first  occasion,  while  you  were  at  the  university,  did  you  belong  to  a 
group  or  cell  that  was  organized  within  the  university  or  on  the 
campus  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  About  the  only  thing  I  remember  about  that  group 
is  that  it  was  not  a  university  group.  It  was  apparently  a  neighbor- 
hood group  of  some  kind,  but  I  attended  only — I  can't  even  remem- 
ber— I  remember  two  meetings,  and  I  may  have  attended  more,  and 
I  may  have  forgotten  one  or  two  more. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  have  told  us  how  Albert  Maltz  was  instru- 
mental in  bringing  you  back  into  the  Communist  Party  in  1946, 
and  having  you  assigned  to  a  group  of  intellectuals  within  the  party. 
Will  you  give  us  the  names  of  the  members  of  that  group  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  they  have  all  been  named  many  times.  Albert 
Maltz,  Harry  Carlisle,  Robert  Lees,  Philip  Stevenson  and  his  wife 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  was  Stevenson's  wife's  name? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  think  it  was  Janet.    I  am  not  sure. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Just  a  moment.  While  I  was  speaking,  I  believe 
that  you  mentioned  the  name  of  Ben  Barzman. 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  you  name  his  wife  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  is  his  wife's  name? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Norma. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  The  name  Stevenson  is  S-t-e-v-e-n-s-o-n ;  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  really  don't  know.     Some  of  the  others  were 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Barzman.    Do  you  know  the  spelling  of  Barzman? 

Mr.  Huggins.  No  ;  I  don't.  I  don't  know  whether  there  is  a  "z"  or 
not  in  the  name. 

George  Sklar  was  a  member  of  the  group.  Guy  Endore,  E-n-d-o-r-e, 
I  tli ink.     There  were  a  half  a  dozen  others. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  who  was  the  dues  secretary  of  the 
group  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes;  that  was  Robert  Richards  and  Ann  Morgan. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Robert  Richards  and  Ann  Morgan  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Who  was  the  person  that  was  considered  to  be  the 
head  of  this  group  or  cell  ? 


Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  suppose  that  changed,  and  the  only  one  I 
remembered — that  is  another  name,  Elliott  Grennard,  and  I  think  he 
was  the  nominal  head  at  one  time  or  another. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  How  do  you  spell  Grennard  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  don't  know.  I  have  no  idea.  But  the  Harry  Car- 
lisle I  mentioned,  and  there  are  two.  Harry  Carlisles,  apparently,  in 
the  Communist  Party,  one  of  them  was  recently  tried,  and  the  other 
one  is  waiting  to  be  deported  to  England,  and  that  is  the  one  that  was 
in  this  group,  the  one  that  is  now  up  for  deportation.  Harry  Carlisle 
was  the  one  apparently  looked  to  as  the  theoretical  leader  of  this 
particular  group. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  a  person  by  the  name  of  Leslie  Edgley  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  he  was  a  member  of  the  group.  I  don't  know 
how  to  spell  it. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  E-d-g-1-e-y? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Probably. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  a  person  by  the  name  of  Val  Burton  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  B-u-r-t-o-n  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Was  he  known  to  you  to  be  a  member  of  the  Com- 
munist Party  and  of  this  group  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Wilma  Shore  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  S-h-o-r-e? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Was  she  known  to' you  personally  to  be  a  member 
of  this  group  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  she  was  a  member  of  the  group  for  a  short  time. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Lillith  James? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  L-i-1-l-i-t-h  James  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Was  she  known  to  you  to  be  a  member  of  the  Com- 
munist Party  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  some  of  the  meetings  were  held  at  her  house. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Can  you  recall  the  names  of  other  persons  in  whose 

Mr.  Huggins.  George  Sklar,  I  believe  is  the  name,  and  the  Steven- 
son home  was  used  on  occasions,  and  I  think  that  is  it. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Dan  James? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Only  by  hearsay.  I  think  I  met  Dan  James  at  non- 
Communist  functions  on  occasion. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Not  at  the  time  you  entered  the  Communist  Party 
back  in  1943,  I  believe  it  was? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  The  second  time. 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  group  that  you  were  as- 
signed to  on  that  occasion? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  guess  it  was  a  semiprofessional  group  as  far  as  I 
have  been  able  to  figure  it  out. 


Mr.  Tavenner.  What  professions  were  represented  in  that  group,  if 
you  can  tell  us? 

Mr.  Huggins.  There  was  a  doctor — Dr.  Abowitz  and  his  wife  were 
members  of  that  group,  Murray  Abowitz,  and 

Mr.  Tavenner.  How  do  you  spell  it? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Did  I  understand  you  to  mention  his  wife's  name? 

Mr.  Huggins.  She  was  a  member  of  that  group. 

Mr.  Tavknxer.  What  was  her  name? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Wood.  Was  she  also  likewise  a  doctor? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Was  her  name  Ellenore? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes;  that  is  it. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Can  you  recall  other  professions  that  were  repre- 
sented in  that  group? 

Mr.  Huggins.  There  was  an  optometrist  named  Howard  Davis  and 
his  wife,  and  there  was  a  lawyer  whose  name  I  can't  remember. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  What  was  the  name  of  the  wdfe  of  the  optometrist? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  don't  remember  it. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  whether  her  name  was  Shirley? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  don't  think  so.  It  may  have  been.  Really,  as  I 
say,  I  attended  very  few  meetings,  and  I  do  not  know.  These  are  the 
only  members  whose  names  I  remember,  and  it  was  a  large  group,  and 
there  must  have  been  40  or  50  members  of  that  group,  and  I  only  re- 
member 4  people  in  it. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  You  say  you  recall  a  lawyer.  Do  you  know  his 
name  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  No  ;  I  have  forgotten  his  name. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  where  that  group  met  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  think  it  was  at  the  Davis  house.  I  am  not  certain 
of  that. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Do  you  recall  the  circumstances  under  which  you 
united  with  the  party  on  that  occasion ;  that  is,  whether  or  not  you 
were  requested  to  come  into  the  party,  or  whether  you  did  it  entirely 
on  your  own  initiative,  and,  if  so,  to  whom  did  you  make  your 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  think  as  in  the  first  place,  when  I  finally  took  the 
action,  it  was  my  own  action  taken  on  my  own  initiative.  I  don't 
know  howT  I  found  out  where  to  go,  but  I  went  downtown  in  Holly- 
wood somewhere,  and  I  went  upstairs  and  found  a  man  named  John 
Stapp — S  tap  p — I  think,  and  asked  him  to  assign  me  in  a  group  in 
the  Communist  Party,  which  he  did. 

Mr.  Tavenner.  Now,  in  stating  the  fallacies  of  Marxism  and  the 
other  views  that  you  have  expressed  regarding  the  Communist  Party, 
I  assume  that  those  matters  played  a  great  part  in  your  withdrawing 
from  the  Communist  Party;  but,  if  there  is  anything  else  that  you 
desire  to  state  with  regard  to  your  withdrawal  from  the  Communist 
Party  I  would  like  to  hear  it  now. 

Mr.  Huggins.  No;  I  think  that  the  basic  reason  for  my  withdrawal 
was  the  same  reason  that  I  withdrew  when  I  first  went  in  :  That  T  felt 
that  the  party  had  finally  reached  a  point  where  you  simply  could  not 


be  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party  and  consider  yourself  to  be  an 
American  citizen.  It  was  that  simple.  To  me,  instead  of  my  being 
wrong  about  them  in  1940  and  right  in  1943,  it  turned  out  to  be  the 

Mr.  Tavenner.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Wood.  Mr.  Walter,  do  you  have  any  questions? 

Mr.  Walter.  I  have  no  questions. 

Mr.  Wood.  Mr.  Doyle? 

Mr.  Doyle.  I  noticed  your  voluntary  statement  that  the  Commu- 
nist Party  is  admittedly  antidemocratic.  In  connection  with  that 
statement,  you  said  "but  they  claim  to  have  a  type  of  their  own  which 
will  come  later." 

Now,  what  type  of  democratic  process  do  they  claim  will  come  later ; 
and,  if  that  is  a  fair  question,  when  do  you  think  it  will  come? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  think  it  is  something  they  don't  talk  about 
very  much  any  more.  It  is  something  that  Marx  and  Lenin  talked 
about  a  great  deal ;  at  least,  I  think  Lenin  did  and  I  know  Marx  did. 
That  was  the  type  of  democracy  that  you  would  have  in  a  stateless 
society,  or  in  classless  society.  According  to  Marx,  that  is  a  pure  kind 
of  democracy,  in  which  there  would  be  no  state  at  all. 

Mr.  Doyle.  Then  I  take  it  that  that  answer  is  the  one  you  explained 
before  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  that  this  is  the  so-called  withering-away-of -the- 
state  theory,  which  history  is  every  day  proving  to  be  wrong. 

Mr.  Doyle.  Three  or  four  times  you  stated  that  the  Communist 
Party  in  America  is  such  that  you  cannot  be  a  loyal  American  and  a 
member  of  the  Communist  Party  in  America.  I  am  not  sure  that  I 
grasp  the  ultimate  conclusion  yet.    Why  can  you  not  be? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  it  is  based  on  two  things.  One,  I  think  it  is 
abundantly  proved  that  the  Communist  Party  line  always  reflects 
Soviet  foreign  policy.  If  you  accept  that,  as  I  do,  that  is  the  basis 
for  the  assumption. 

Now,  there  are  other  bases  for  it.  A  member  of  the  Communist 
Party  must  take  discipline  and  must  do  as  he  is  told  to  do,  and  this  is 
another  clear-cut  fact  about  communism. 

Mr.  Doyle.  Then  you  mean  that  the  Soviet  foreign  policy  is  con- 
trary to  the  best  interests  of  the  policy  of  the  United  States.  Is  that 
why  you  cannot  accept  it  and  still  be  a  loyal  American  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Soviet  foreign  policy  turns  about,  or  Soviet  propa- 
ganda, let  us  say,  which  is  the  basis  for  the  Communist  Party  line 
here,  turns  everything  that  this  country  does  upside  down.  We  aid 
demoeracty  in  Europe,  and  it  is  called  warmongering.  We  come  to  the 
aid  through  the  United  Nations  of  the  South  Koreans,  and  we  are 
called  again  warmongers,  and  the  world  is  even  told  that  the  South 
Koreans  started  the  war,  and  not  the  North  Koreans  at  all,  and  we 
are  just  trying  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  peoples  of  Asia. 

This  is  the  line  of  the  Soviet  Union. 

Mr.  Moulder.  Or  the  world  revolution,  would  you  say? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  did  not  hear  that  question. 

Mr.  Moulder.  I  will  wait  until  Mr.  Doyle  is  through. 

Mr.  Doyle.  You  stated  it  appears  democracy  has  a  lot  more  vitality 
than  was  thought.  What  vitality  has  democracy  that  you  did  not 
think  it  had,  and  what  have  you  discovered  it  has? 


Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  as  I  said,  in  1040,  how  many  democracies  were 
there  in  the  industrial  nations  of  the  world?  There  were  just  two. 
There  were  only  two.  Fascism  had  a  complete  grip  on  the  world. 
Now  today  there  are  a  lot  of  democracies,  and  they  are  fighting  almost 
as  if  it  were  a  new  thing.  It  has  tremendous  vitality  and  spirit,  and 
it  is  a  new  world  today. 

Mr.  Doyle.  1  was  interested  in  your  comment  that  any  difference  of 
opinion  was  immediately  frowned  upon  by  the  chief  intellectuals  of 
the  group.  I  think  that  was  your  correct  testimony.  What  do 
you  mean  by  the  chief  intellectuals  of  the  group?  Who  were  they 
and  how  were  they  chosen? 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  suppose  what  I  mean  was  that  there  were  certain 
people  in  the  group  who  were  simply  recognized  by  others  as  saying 
more  than  the  others,  and  saying  it  with  a  better  choice  of  communistic 
jargon,  and  there  is  a  special  Communist  jargon,  which  I  was  never 
able  to  master,  but  I  would  say  these  are  the  people  that  I  referred 
to.  The  response  always  for  any  man  who  gets  out  of  line  is  to  start 
implying  that  something  is  wrong  with  him,  and  they  start  calling 
him  names,  you  know,  "You  are  guilty  of  bourgeois  deviation,  com- 
rade," and  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  Doyle.  Was  there  any  act  or  omission  which  you  participated 
in,  directly  or  indirectly,  as  you  look  back  at  it,  which  in  your  judg- 
ment should  have  labeled  you  as  a  Communist  at  the  university,  and 
caused  you  to  be  denied  a  fellowship? 

Mr.  Huggins.  None  at  all ;  not  one. 

Mr.  Doyle.  You  certainly  were,  according  to  your  Phi  Beta  Kappa 
record  and  other  statements  of  scholarship  made  by  you,  you  were  a 
diligent  thinker  and  an  intellectual. 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  was  what  is  known  as  a  premature  anti-Fascist. 

Mr.  Doyle.  Have  you  any  suggestions  to  make  to  this  committee 
in  the  functioning  of  our  responsibilities  to  the  American  people, 
through  the  United  States  Congress — do  you  know  what  our  respon- 
sibility is?  It  is  to  uncover  wherever  possible  subversive  activities  of 
people  who  would  advocate  or  use  force  and  violence  to  overthrow  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Have  you  any  advice  for  us  or  sug- 
gestions or  criticism,  even  ?  I  have  never  talked  with  you,  sir.  I  have 
never  talked  with  you,  have  I,  and  I  realize  in  asking  you  this  question 
I  am  doing  it  right  out  of  a  clear  sky  to  you. 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes,  that  is  true. 

Mr.  Doyle.  And  yet  I  feel  that  if  you  have  a  statement,  I  would 
like  to  get  it. 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  think  that  you  are  in  a  spot,  because  there  isn't  an}*- 
question  in  my  mind  at  all  but  there  is  a  great  need  for  democracy  to 
do  something  about  the  subversive  drives  which  intend  to  overthrow 
it.  This  is  one  of  the  things  that  disturbed  me  deeply  about  the 
Communist  Party,  is  that  they  do  not  believe  in  individual  freedom, 
and  yet  they  shout  to  the  housetops  in  defense  of  individual  freedom 
in  all  of  the  democratic  countries  in  which  they  exist.  They  become 
champions  of  complete  political  freedom.  The  moment  they  get 
power,  they  wTill  destroy  political  freedom.  It  seems  to  be  one  more 
evidence  of  their  complete  lack  of  integrity  or  scrupulousness  or 
anything  else. 


So  I  think  that  to  the  Communist,  capitalism  is  going  to  be  in  a 
sense  an  easy  thing  to  overthrow,  eventually,  I  suppose,  because  we 
do  have  a  tendency  to  fail  to  fight  our  enemies  properly,  but  I  suppose 
one  of  the  reasons  for  that  is  that  it  would  be  a  terrible  thing  if  we 
were  to  fight  tyranny  by  becoming  a  tyranny  ourselves,  isn't  that  so? 
This  would  be  a  terrible  thing  if  we  are  anti-Communist  because  we 
feel  that  Communists  destroy  individual  freedom  and  liberty,  and 
in  fighting  communism,  we  destroy  individual  freedom  and  liberty. 
This  would  be  a  fight  in  vain. 

So  I  think  that  is  why  I  say  this  committee  is  in  a  terrible  spot, 
because  I  think  that  subversive  elements  must  be  fought,  and  I  think 
democracy  has  to  fight  for  its  life,  and  it  can't  just  sit  back  and  say, 
"Well,  history  will  take  care  of  us."  It  has  got  enemies  and  it  has 
to  fight  those  enemies  but  it  has  to  fight  them  within  the  framework 
of  the  democratic  system,  or  it  might  as  well  not  fight  at  all,  because 
it  loses  the  battle  in  the  means  it  chooses  to  use  to  fight  that  battle. 
I  don't  know  whether  that  answers  your  question  or  not. 

Mr.  Doyle.  I  think  it  does,  sir.    Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Wood.  Mr.  Frazier  ? 

Mr.  Frazier.  I  have  no  questions. 

Mr.  Wood.  Mr.  Moulder? 

Mr.  Moulder.  No  questions. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Mr.  Huggins,  we  are  talking  about  this  pall  of  silence 
that  falls  upon  the  party  immediately  following  one  of  these  abrupt 
right-angle  turns  in  foreign  policy  of  the  Soviet  Union.  What  physical 
steps  then  follow  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  responsible  for  the 
rationalization  of  this  situation?  There  must  be  a  lot  of  unhappy, 
disgruntled  comrades  who  have  been  caught  in  the  middle  of  a  breath. 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  wasn't  in  the  party  when  it  happened  in 
1939,  and  I  wasn't  attending  meetings  when  it  happened  in  1946, 
I  think,  the  Duclos  letter,  or  in  1945,  so  I  wish  I  were  more  of  an  expert. 
I  have  an  opinion  on  this,  but  I  can't  say  that  I  observed  it  first-hand. 
What  I  have  seen  is  this,  that  a  few  seem  to  get  lost,  at  every  one  of 
these  turns,  a  few  fall  off,  but  most  of  them  just  sit  back  and  say 
nothing,  and  are  very  quiet  about  it  until  a  few  weeks  have  passed, 
and  then  they  start  talking  the  new  line,  and  it  is  just  not  mentioned, 
that  is  all.  It  is  like  the  family  with  a  drunken  uncle,  you  know. 
The  uncle  comes  home  drunk  and  they  have  to  put  him  to  bed,  but  they 
don't  talk  about  it  after  they  get  him  to  bed. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Well,  the  party  has  had  more  than  its  share  of  uncles 
with  respect  to  these  abrupt  turns. 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Would  you  consider  that  there  is  any  thinking  indi- 
vidual who  seriously  believes  the  Soviet  Union  to  be  a  classless  society 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  suppose  yes,  in  a  theoretical  sense,  it  is  a 
classless  society,  and  I  know  what  you  mean,  and  it  actually  has  a 
huge  burdensome  bureaucracy,  and  then  a  working  class,  and  that 
is  it,  and  they  are  two  very  distinct  classes  in  the  Soviet  Union. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Well,  of  course,  so  far  as  the  Communists  themselves 
are  concerned,  there  are  2  million  out  of  the  entire  population  of  the 
Soviet  Union  who  actually  belong  to  the  Communist  Party,  and  that 
would  seem  to  me  to  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  lack  of  any  classless 


Mr.  Huggins.  Yes ;  I  would  say  that  they  are  the  new  Czarist  aris- 
tocracy of  Russia,  and  they  act  exactly  the  same  way. 

Mr.  Jackson.  To  what  do  you  attribute  the  violence  of  the  Com- 
munist attack  upon  this  committee,  and  the  other  committees  of  like 
nature?  Is  it  that  the  Communists  are  seriously  concerned,  let  us 
say,  with  constitutional  government  as  we  know  it  in  this  country, 
or  is  it  possibly  that  the  fact  that  exposure  is  to  be  avoided?  Is  that 
true?    I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  think  there  are  two  things;  both  questions 
can  be  answered  "Yes."  I  don't  recall  the  exact  source,  but  I  know 
that  even  Marx  himself  wrote  that  the  Communist  Parties  must  be 
prepared  to  make  use  of  democratic  freedoms;  that  this  is  one  of 
the  greatest  weapons  they  have.    That  is  why  you  have  a  real  problem. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Well,  is  the  utility  of  a  Communist  who  is  exposed 
publicly,  in  any  way  affected  so  far  as  the  party  is  concerned  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  would  say  it  depends  on  what  his  role  is  in 
society.  I  am  sure  that  if  a  man  is  highly  placed  in  Government,  it  is 
in  the  interest  of  the  Communist  Party  not  to  have  him  exposed,  or  if 
a  man  is  placed  in  any  position  where  as  long  as  he  is  unexposed  can 
do  something  that  the  Communist  Party  thinks  is  worth  while. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Then  from  the  standpoint  of  America,  exposure  is  an 
excellent  idea  ? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Yes;  I  would  say  so. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Do  you  make  any  distinction  in  your  own  mind,  Mr. 
Huggins,  as  between  a  Communist  in  the  city  of  Los  Angeles,  and  a 
Communist  in  the  North  Korean  or  Chinese  Red  armies  philosophi- 
cally ?  Do  they  have  the  same  goal,  or  is  there  any  material  differences 
in  what  they  are  seeking?  I  am  assuming  now  the  North  Korean  or 
the  Chinese  Red  is  an  intelligent  man  who  is  well  read.  What  is  the 
material,  the  fundamental  difference,  if  any,  between  his  counterpart 
in  this  country  and  him? 

Mr.  Huggins.  Well,  I  don't  know  much  about  it.  I  would  not  know 
how  to  answer  that,  because  I  just  haven't  any  idea  what  a  Korean 
Communist  thinks  about,  you  know,  what  he  is  a  Communist  for.  And 
1  don't  know.  I  have  a  suspicion  that  they  are  very  much  alike  in 
that  they  are  both  the  dupes  of  the  Soviet  Union,  and  they  are  both 
being  used  for  the  purposes  of  the  Soviet  Union,  and  in  that  respect 
they  are  very  much  alike. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Mao  Tse-tung  and  William  Z.  Foster  studied  the 
same  text. 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  am  sure  that  they  have  basically  pretty  much  the 
same  goals,  which  are  to  further  the  interests  of  the  Soviet  Union. 

Mr.  Jackson.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Huggins.  Your  testi- 
mony is  greatly  appreciated. 

Mr.  Moulder.  You  do  not  know  of  any  Communists  in  our  Govern- 
ment; do  you,  Mr.  Huggins? 

Mr.  Huggins.  No;  I  don't. 

Mr.  Moulder.  Thank  you.    That  is  all  I  have. 

Mr.  Wood.  Mr.  Counsel,  have  you  any  further  questions? 

Mr.  Tavenner.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Wood.  Do  you  know  of  any  reason  why  this  witness  should  not 
be  excused  from  further  attendance  on  the  committee? 

Mr.  Tavenner.  No,  sir;  but  I  would  like  to  make  just  one  comment, 
to  follow  up  the  question  that  was  asked  by  Representative  Jackson, 


in  regard  to  Communists  in  Korea  and  in  the  United  States,  and  just 
call  the  committee's  attention  to  the  testimony  of  General  Willoughby, 
who  testified  that  the  procedures  back  in  1929  and  1930  in  China  were 
identical  with  those  of  the  Communist  Party  as  used  in  this  country 
to  capture  organizations  and  people.  So  the  procedure  has  been  the 
same  regardless  of  what  the  individual  himself  may  think. 

Mr.  Doyle.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  at  this  point,  possibly,  if  it  is  ap- 
propriate for  me  to  say  to  Mr.  Huggins,  in  view  of  Representative 
Jackson's  question  and  Mr.  Tavenner's  additional  statement,  that  I 
have  just  returned  from  South  Korea.  Two  weeks  ago  Gen.  Mark 
Clark  and  General  Van  Fleet  told  me  that  there  was  no  question  but 
that  the  aggressive  communism  and  subversive  communism  that  we 
have  in  America  and  in  South  Korea  emanates  from  the  Soviet  Union, 
and  they  told  me  that  2  weeks  ago. 

Mr.  Wood.  From  one  and  the  same  source. 

Mr.  Doyle.  Yes.     I  was  there  2  weeks  ago. 

Mr.  Huggins.  I  am  convinced  of  that. 

Mr.  Wood.  Mr.  Huggins,  I  have  been  very  much  interested  in  listen- 
ing to  your  testimony,  and  it  has  been  most  enlightening  in  many  re- 
spects. I  also  feel  a  very  keen  sense  of  appreciation  for  the  contribu- 
tion you  have  made  to  the  work  of  the  committee  in  thus  being  willing 
to  come  before  us,  and  frankly  give  the  committee  the  information  that 
you  have  on  this  subject.  I  believe  it  will  be  most  helpful  to  the  com- 
mittee, and  I  think  I  bespeak  the  sentiments  of  the  entire  committee 
when  I  say  we  are  most  grateful  to  you  for  coming  here. 

If  there  is  no  further  question  by  any  of  the  committee  of  its  coun- 
sel, I  take  the  liberty  of  excusing  you  from  further  attendance. 

Mr.  Counsel,  whom  do  you  have  next  ? 

Mr.  Tavenner.  We  have  no  further  witnesses  this  afternoon,  Mr. 

Mr.  Wood.  In  that  connection,  it  might  be  well,  I  believe,  to  an- 
nounce that  following  the  setting  up  of  these  hearings  and  the  designa- 
tion of  today  as  the  beginning  of  them,  it  came  to  the  attention  of  the 
committee  that  this  session  today  would  most  likely  interfere  with  a 
certain  religious  holiday,  and  therefore  the  committee  saw  fit  to  recog- 
nize any  requests  that  were  made  by  witnesses  under  subpena  to  come 
before  the  committee  on  this  day  for  the  postponement  of  their  testi- 
mony until  a  future  time,  and  they  so  indulged  every  request  that  was 
made,  and  for  that  reason  it  is  the  only  witness  that  we  will  be  able 
to  hear. 

The  committee  will  stand  in  recess  until  9 :  30  in  the  morning. 

(Thereupon  at  3 :  15  p.  m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until  9  :  30  a.  m.,  Tues- 
day, September  30,  1952.) 



3   0001    036428946 



Y  4. UN 


C  73/21/ 




es.  Congress. 


Committee  on 


— i — . — __^^_ 

DEMCO,  INC.  38-2931